No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Attempts to Label the Oracula Sibyllina, Book 7
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Extract
Among the surviving books of the Sibylline Oracles, Book 7 has aroused particular interest because of its allegedly Jewish-Christian and Gnostic character. A. Rzach has described the author of Book 7 as “ein durch die Gnosis beeinflusster, vielleicht aus dem Judentume … hervorgegangener Christ.” J. Geffcken regards the book as a product of Jewish Christianity with traces of Gnostic influence. And A. Kurfess, in an article which bids fair to become the standard introduction for English-speaking students of the Sibyllines, calls it “purely Christian,” while also indicating the presence of “gnosticizing views.”. Given the lack of sustained interest in these writings during recent years, I think it not unimportant to examine the adequacy of these labels and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support them.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1972
References
1 Orakel, Sibyllinische, RE II 2(1923), 2141.Google Scholar
2 Koimposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Neue Folge 8.1, Leipzig, 1902), 34 (hereafter, Geffcken, Komposition). See also Geffcken's edition of the text, Die Oracula Sibyllina (GCS 8, Leipzig, 1902) (hereafter, Geffcken, Oracula Sibyllina). Geffcken's view is also taken over by Daniélou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. Baker, John A. (London and Chicago, 1964), 17.Google Scholar
3 Christian Sibyllines in New Testament Apocrypha, eds. Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W., English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia, 1965), II, 707ffGoogle Scholar. In his book, Sibyllinische Weissagungen (Nordlingen, 1951)Google Scholar, he explicitly identifies the author as Jewish-Christian: “Alexandre hat mit Recht in dem Verfasser einen Judenchristen gesehen” (313). The English translation of Book 7 in Hennecke-Schneemelcher differs at several points from earlier English versions. The reason for this is that Kurfess' German translation, which lies behind the version in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, is based on Kurfess' own emendations of the Greek text which appear in none of the earlier editions. A list of these emendations appears in Kurfess, Sibyllinische Weissagungen, 349–64. I cite two examples from Book 7. At 7.157 he reads μɛ φγῃ (“shall devour me”) for μ᾽ ἔφαγɛν (“has devoured me”), and at 7.162 he reads τɛσω (“I shall pay the penalty”) for ζσω (“I shall live”). Thus it is somewhat misleading to read that the English version in Hennecke-Schneemelcher “is based on the Greek text as printed in the editions of Kurfess and Geffcken….” (II, 709, note 1). Since Kurfess' text differs considerably from Geffcken's, the line should probably read “Geffcken's text as emended by Kurfess.”
4 The phrase ἔμφυλος λɛῖ στσις in line 20 appears also in DioCassius 62.18.3 and 57.18.5, where it is explicitly attributed to the Sibyl, οὐκ ἔραι πλοτου, in line 89 (cf. also OrSib 2.56, 109) which recalls Theognis 1155 οὐκ ἔραμαιπλουτɛῖν, may be nothing more than a commonplace.
5 On the question of the definition of Gnosticism there is an enormous literature. One of the most recent contributions to the discussion is to be found in Le origini dello gnosticistno: Colloquio di Messina, 13–18 aprile 1966, ed. Bianchi, U. (Studies in the History of Religions XII, Leiden, 1967).Google Scholar
6 Geffcken, Oracula Sibyllina, 137 (ad loc. 7.71–73) and Kukfess, Christian Sibyllines, 707f. The story in chs. 17–24 of the Acts of Thomas relates how King Gundophorus of India commissioned Thomas to build a palace. After supplying Thomas with great sums of money, which Thomas used to heal the sick, the enraged king imprisoned the apostle. The point of the tale emerges only when the king's deceased brother reports to the king in a vision that Thomas had built the palace in heaven, using good works as his bricks and mortar.
7 Haer. 31.3.6, where Epiphanius is actually discussing Hesiod, Theog. 116ff.
8 In line 140, Geffcken and Kurfess emend to λδοδος where the manuscripts read γδοτης
9 Adv. Haer. 1.5.2. (I 44 ed. Harvey).
10 Haer. 31.4.2; 31.6.2–9.
11 “There are the three klēroi of the kingdom of light; the mysteries of these three klēroi of light are very numerous. You will find them in the second great book of Ieou.” (My translation from the Coptic text, p. 246. 18–21, ed. C. Schmidt, Copenhagen, 1925.)
12 A similar point is made by Grant, R. M., Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York, 1966, revised edition), 197Google Scholar: “When we see what seem to resemble Gnostic ideas in the works of later writers, we should bear in mind van Unnik's wise warning that a phrase used by a Gnostic teacher is not necessarily a Gnostic phrase.”
13 See the discussion by J. Munck, Jewish Christianity in Post-Apostolic Times, NTS (1959/60), 103–16. In 1967–68 the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins dealt with the topic of Jewish Christianity in the early centuries. I am particularly indebted to Professor Robert A. Kraft for his presentation on problems of defining Jewish Christianity: see the minutes for the meeting of September 26, 1967, vol. 5, set 1 (and Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity [supra, note 2], 7–11).
14 So Simon, M. in Benoit, A. and Simon, M., eds., Le judaisme el le christianisme antique (Nouvelle Clio 10, Paris, 1968), 261.Google Scholar
15 So. Schoeps, H.-J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (1949)Google Scholar, which deals exclusively with the Ebionites.
16 So Daniélou, , The Theology of Jewish Christianity (supra, note 2), 9.Google Scholar
17 A point also made by Munck, art. cit. (supra, note 13), 113f. in criticism of Daniélou.
18 Apud Epiph. Haer. 30.13.7.
19 Dial. c. Tryph. 88.3: κ α πρ νφθη ν τῷ Ἰορδνῃ.
20 De Rebapt. 17 (quoting the Pauli Praedicatio): … item cum baptizaretur ignem super aquam esse visum, quod in evangelio nullo est scriptum.
21 In his critical edition, Oracula Sibyllina (Vienna, 1891), Rzach proposes to read ἔλλαχον in line 135 where Geffcken and Kurfess prefer ἔλλαβον. In either case the sense remains basically the same.
22 This interpretation would rest in part on the suggestion put forth by J. Munck, art. cit. (supra, note 13) that after 70 C.E. “all later Jewish Christianity has its origin in the Gentile-Christian Church of the post-apostolic period” (114).
23 Studies in Magical Amulets (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 49, Ann Arbor, 1950), 18.
24 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (New York, 1953–68), II, 206, note 229.
25 So also Th. Hopfner, Mageia, RE 27 (1930), 307.
26 Jewish Symbols, II, 206f.
27 In his review of Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, volumes 1–3, H. Leon (Archeology 7 [1954], 262) remarks that once Goodenough “admits that pagans commonly used Jewish names in their magic, the identification of purely Jewish ones becomes exceedingly dubious….”
28 Geffcken, Komposition, 35, acknowledges the difficulty of assigning a label to the book as a whole, but finally avoids the methodological issues (“… kann ich meinesteils das Buch keiner bestimmten Sekte zuschreiben, sondern möchte darin ein Denkmal des Judenchristentums und der in ihm mannigfach wirkenden Einflüsse erkennen. Hier kann eben nur ein Theologe das letzte Wort sprechen.”). Geffcken's comment also indicates the difficulty of saying anything definite about the use or Sitz im Leben of the book. At best one can suppose an apologetic motive, i.e., to claim the authority and the antiquity of the Sibyl for the community, just as Jewish and Christian apologists claimed that Plato had learned his wisdom from Moses.