4. Original language. — Until the last few years it was generally agreed that the Testaments, as we now have them, were not a translation but were originally written in Greek. Charles, however, preceded by two Jewish scholars, Kohler (JQR v. [1893] 400-406) and Gaster (PSBA xvi. 33-49,
* Burkitt points out in his Jcwi?h and Christian Apocalypses, p. S."!, that ' the political conditions of the reii^n of John Hyrcanus give point to the choice of the Twelve Patriarchs aa the speakers in tlie book.' In a sense the ten non-.Iudaic tribes were represented by the inhabitants of Galilee, Samaria, aTid Perjea, who were incorporated in the new Israelite kinf;fdom of the Maccabees, In their case the ethical teaching was especi- ally in point.
TESTAMENTS OF 12 PATRIAKCHS TESTAMENTS OF 12 PATRLVRCHS 5G3
109-117), has put forward an unanswerable case for a Hebrew original (see his Greek Versions of the Testaments, pp. xxiii-xxxii). The text aboumis in Hebrew constructions anil expressions, e.g. iv ar-qdei 6aTiuv aiiTov (Test. Jiid. XX. 4), and in curious mistranslations like f^apx<" aK-liirTpuv for t^apxoi (pvXQv (D'03B', XXV. 1), and >; rpvi/tii for ' ICden ' (py, XXV. 2). The naiiiini; of tlie mountain ' Aspis' from the shield (fiirinj) found by Levi (Test. Levi, vi. 1) is no proof that the original was in (Jreek, as the reference appears to be to pniy (Sirion) and pne* ('body armour') — a word (occurring in tlie parallel passage in Hebrew in the Midrasli Wajjissau), which is more properly rendered fluipaj in Test. Jud. iii. 5. In any case, no mountain is known named Aspis. If we add the ditto- graphs and the numerous paronomasise which are explicable or evident on retranslation in Hebrew, not to mention obscure or unintelligible passages which can be cleared up only by the same means, no doubt can remain that the work as a « hole was composed in Helirew. The related Hebrew and Aramaic fragments and narratives (see § 6) are a further proof of this fact. On the other hand, the Christian interpolations naturally show no trace of Hebrew phrasing or constructions.
S. Critical structure. — The prevailing view until quite recently was that the work emanated from a Jewish Christian or even a Gentile Christian source. This was made possible only liy taking the work as it stands as the uninterpolated pro- duction of a single writer. But even so there remained insoluble problems. We should then be faced with a unique combination of Psilanthropism and PatripassianisHi, with an equally unique com- bination not only of the highest moral teaching with the primitive war spirit so evident, e.g., in Test. Jud., but of explicit (if unguarded) Christian theology with a very Judaic glorying in deeds of physical prowess. A decisive argument against any Christian origin, however, is to be found in the remarkable expectation of a Messiah from the tribe of Levi. All Christians from the first must have rejected this curious by-product of the Maccabaean golden age.*
The fact is that the frank recognition of the composite nature of the text alone explains all the problems which are presented. We must first remove the Christian interpolations. In the main these are obvious (see below, § 8). There remain a number of other passages quite foreign to their context or contradicting the whole teaching of the book. Such are the interpolation after Test. Rent. ii. 2 of the passage dealing with the senses quite in the Stoic manner, and the violent anti-Macca- ba^an invective in Test. Levi, xiv.-xvi. and Test. Jud. xxi. 6-xxiii. Charles regards as 1st cent. B.C. additions Test. Levi, x., xiv.-xvi., Test. Jud. xvii. 2-xviii. 1 (?), xxi. 6-xxiii., xxiv. 4-6, Test. Zeb. ix., Test. Dan, v. 6, 7, vii. 3 (?), Test. Nap/i. iv., Te.st. Gad, viii. 2, 2'est. Asher, vii. 4-7. They have as a common feature the frequent citation of the Book of Enoch. They refer not merely to a second great apostasy, but to a second destruction of the Temple and a second captivity and a final restora- tion wrought by God directly or through the Messiah. Charles regards these as genuine pre- dictions. In Test. Levi, xvii. 1-9 there is a curious interpolation, which employs the jubilee .system of chronology. Test. Jos. x. 5-xviii. is quite dirterent
* On the other hand, there exists a curious frajrment attri- buted to Irenieus in which Christ is represented as descended from Levi and Judah (ed. W. W. Harvey, Cambridge, 1S57, ii. 4S7) ; i^Ztvb Xpi(7TO? iTpofTVTTijj97\ KOI eneyvutadi) Kal iyein'riOri. ft' IJL€V yap Tw 'Iu)crTj(6 TrpotTyTrujfln ■ €k 5e Toil .\eu'i Kal ToO 'Iou6a to Ktna. (rapxa ci,? /3ao-iA€V9 Kal tcpeiis eyevvrjO-q, ktK. These ideas may have been suggested by the Testaments. At the same time the fact remains that our Lorfl's kinsman .lolln tile l!a]ilist was of the priestly tribe, and a quite early tradition connects the Blessed Virgin witli tlie Temple.
in stylo and theme from the rest of that Testament. Test. Zeb. has two short sections on almsgiving (vi. 4-6, vii. -viii. 3) which occur in only three MSS and interrupt I lie iKirrative (see, further, Charles's edition, jip. Ivii-lxi and notes).
6, Text. — The Hebrew original is not extant, but we have valuable evidence available towards the restoration of corrupt and dilficult passages in kindred literature:
i. The Aramaic and Greek fragments of what appears to have been a Hebrew source both of the Testament of J^evi and of the Book of Jubilees. For the <liscovery of these fragments and their mutual relation see Charles, Greek Vernons of the Testaments, pp. liii-lvii. His conclusions are dis- puted by Conybeare, in Revietv of Theol. and Philos. iv. [1908-U9J 373-3S2, who regards the Greek text preserved in the fragment as the source of our pre- sent Test. Levi, but his reasons are not convincing.