Sin, therefore, being especially regarded as proceeding from Ta Trva.v/jara r»)c TrXrli'jjt') is constantly spoken of as dyi'ota, TixpXiiiaic, and the like, for wliich pardon is readily granted by God. Ignorance, however, though affording a plea for pardon, cannot of itself be accounted an excuse for the sin ; the appeal is still to be made to the mercy of God. But as from sins ignorantly com- mitted man passes on to those done against light and knowledge, so is there a deeper cast of sins than dyvota. Thus it was dyvota on the part of Zebidon (c. 1 ; comp. Ikut, c. 1; Gad, c. 2) not to reveal to his father his brethren's crime of selling Joseph ; that crime, however, was avoi.ua on their part. And this is alike true for a sin actually committed and for one as yet in embryo in the thoughts of the heart; for Simeon (c. 2), whose hatred for Joseph had led him to contemplate the sin of murder, is accounted in God's sight guUtv of that
crime, and therefore punished. We see here the doc- trine of the apostle enilorsed: "He that hateth his brother is a murderer."
Tlie doctrine of (iod's retributive justice is fully believed in. Sin brings its own punishment in this world (comp. Reub. c. 1 ; Sim. c. 2 ; Gad, c. 5), therefore man should follow (iod's laws (comp. Reub. c. 4; ISim. c. 4; Levi, c. 13; Benj, c. 3; Zeb. c. 8). The fear of God appears as the chief motive for the fulfilment of righteousness (comp. Reub. c. 4, iropu'taS!^ iv dnXurtjTi KapSiac, iv (pojitf) Kiipioi/ ; Sim. c. 3, j) Xvate; tov (pStm'ov Sid (pofiov Kvpiov yirtrai; Gad,c.b,u 0(')/3oc tov Btoii j'lKqi TO fiiaot;; Benj. c. 3. o yap (pofSoufiti'D^ tov Geor, Kai uyaTVwv tov TrXijaiov aiiTor, vird Toii dtpiot' m'tv- juorof TOV BtXidp ou CvvaTai TrXj/yz/rai ; Jos. c. 11; Levi, c. 13).
It is also worthy of remark that most of the patri- archs dwell more especially on some one particidar iorni of vice to be shunned, ordinarily that vice wherein each severally had succumbed to temptation. Thus the S3'Stem of ethics which prevails throughout the Testaments presents a very high and noble code of mor- als to us, not unworthy of a teacher who sought to win over his countrymen to the Christian faith.
VII. Sources. — Having given, in the main, an outline of the most important points contained in the Testa- ments, the question as to the sources for the work can- not be superfluous. From the work itself we infer that the book of Enoch must have been known to the author. Thus seven Testaments out of twelve allude to it as ypa(pt) 'Ev(x)\^, jiijiXoc (/3i/3/\( oj', /3i/3X(a, Xoyot) Evuij^ tov OiKai- ov, ypaft) rofiov Evwx (see Sim.c.b; Levi, c.9, 10, 14 16; Napht.c.A; Juduh,c. 18; D<in,c.b; i?eHj. c.9), and other similar expressions. Zebulon refers to the ypa<pr] Trart- pu)v (c. 9), and Levi (c. 5) and Asher (c. 7) refer to ai irXa- k'h; toiv ovpaviLr, " heavenly tablets." As to the latter, whether they were a book containing what is foreknown and foreordained in heaven as to the course of the fut- ure, and were appealed to when some oracular declara- tion of weighty import was needed, or whether they were something else, we are at a loss to state, although they are often quoted in the book of Enoch and Jubilees. Besides the works mentioned, there can be no doubt that the author of the Testaments knew the book of Ju- bilees, since the amount of coincidence between the two writings is very great (comp. e. g. Reub. c. 3 with Jubilees, c. 33 ; Levi, c. 2, 4, 5, 8 with Jubilees, c. 32 ; I^evi, c. 9 with col; c. 1 1 with c. 3 1 ; Judah, c. 3-7 with c. 34, 38 ; c. 9 with c. 37 ; c. 10 with c. 41 ; c. 19 with c. 41 ; Reub. c. 7, Sim. c. 8, Levi, c. 19, Judah, c. 26, Zeb. c. 10, Ban, c. 7, Napht. c. 9, Gad, c. 8, Asher, c. 8, Benj. c. 12 with Jubi- lees, c. 46, etc.). He also made use of the Targums, Jo- sephus, the Midrashim, and the like. Of greater impor- tance is it to know that the author also made use of the New Test,, and for the latter fact we refer to the elab- orate article of Warfield, The Apologetical Value oj' the Testaments of the XII I\itriarchs, in the (N. Y.) Pres- byterian Review, Jan. 1880, p. 57 sq.
VIII. History of the Work. — " Habent sua fata libelli." It is remarkable that this work, which was known to TertuUian (Adv. Marcionem,v,\; Scorpiace, c. \2>) and Origen {Hum. in Josuarn xv, c. 6), became first known to the world at large through the Latin version of Robert Grosseteste, or Greathead, bishop of Lincoln, of the I3th century. This version soon spread over Europe, and, in the course of time, translations into a large number of languages were made from it — into English, French, German, Dutch, Flemish, Danish, Bohemian, and Ar- menian. M<ire than four centuries had passed since Grosseteste's Latin version, when at last the Greek text was for the first time published by Grabe, in his Spicilegium I^atrum et Ha>,reticoruin ( Oxford, 1698 ), from a MS. in the university library of Cambridge, col- lated with one at Oxford. In 1713 Fabricius published the Greek text in his Codex rseudepigi-uphus V. T. (Hamburg), adding but slightly to the criticism of the text. In 1714 Grabe published a second edition, re-