« 上一頁繼續 »
where now to be found in those extunt tragedies of this poet, many whereof have been lost, yet the sincerity thereof cannot reasonably be at all suspected by us, it having been eited by so many of the ancient fathers in their writings against the pagans, as particularly Justin Murtyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Cyril, and Theodoret, of which number Clemens tells us, thut it was attested likexcise by that ancient Pagan historiographer Hecatæus. Intell. Syst, p. 363.
Hecatæus, whom Josephus commends, Contr. Apion.
..i. 22. is said to have lived in the tiine of Alexander the Great, and to have conversed much with the Jews, and he might have been a kind of proselyte, or half-Jew. Le Clere suspects that this book of Hecatæus might have been forged by the Jews, Bibl. Chois. viii. 392. Athenagoras only cites the two first verses of this fragment: it is strange that he should not have produced the rest, if he ever saw it, which made so much for his
think it improbable that Sophocles should venture to attack the gods and the religious ceremonies of his own country in so open a manner : but these verses are not, like those of the Sibyl, in the style of the Scriptures, and it is certain that in the Greek comedies and tragedies there are many bold strokes against the fabulous and popular religions; and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, v, p. 691, produces passages out of Euripides, Plato, and Zeno, whieh are very remote from the yulgar notions concerning the gods. The fathers have taken great pains to collect such testi, monies, for which we are much obliged to them.
Justin, Cohort. 3$. cites an oracle, which seems to be a Jewish or a Christian trifle, in which it is said
--στώτον αλασας μερόπων, 'Αδαμ δε καλέσσας.
Δει και τον άνδρα χρήσιμον καθεσάναι,
be, an interpolation in Justin : Ουκ επιθυμήσεις την γυναίκα το πλησίον ουκ επιθυμήσεις την οικίαν τε πλησίον του, έδε τον αγρόν αυτε, έδε τον σαΐδα αυτε, έδε την παιδίσκην αυτε, ότε το βούς αυτα, ότι το υσοζυγίου αυτή, ετε σαντός κώνους αιτε, έτε όσα το πλησίον και εσί Erod. XX. 17. Τ' αλλότρια βλέποντα, καπιθυμόνερα
is not a verse, nor worth the mending. One might read,
Ταλλότρια βλέποντ', ή επιθυμάμενον-
Χώριζεθνητων τον Θεόν, και μη δωκά
is also to be found with some various readings in Clemens Strom. v. 727.
The last line has an air of forgery ; it is unharmonious, and prosaic, and seems to be taken from the Scriptures. In the second line, instead of "Oudor Cautas it should perhaps be "O moise Cautw-for the second foot will not regularly admit a spondee.
Eusebius, imless my memory deceives me, has made no direct lise of the Sibyl, whence it may be conjectured that he had no great esteem for her. Dr Middleton has charged him with approving and justifying a very silly Acrostich of the Erythræan Sibyl. Eusebius has preserved an Acrostich.-He tells us however that many people rejected it---but the truth, acids he, is manifest--for it is agreed by all thut Cicero had read this poem.--Now the sole ground of this confident assertion is, &c. Inquiry, p. 36.
The father of Ecclesiastical History deserves pot this censure, and the Doctor has inadvertently ascribed to Eusebius, sentiments contained in an oration, published indeed by Eusebius, but composed by the Emperor Constantine.
As to the Emperor's judgment, defend it who will, for I will not; but why should Eusebius be responsible for the mistakes of
Constantine? Sec Canstantini Orat. apud Eusebium, p. 700. Edit. Cant. and Valesius there, and Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 32.
Eusebius cites tlie Sibyl, Praep. Ευαng. xiii, 13. but in the words of Clemens Alexandrinus, whom he transcribes. .
IX. 15. Ile produces a passage from her concerning the tower of Babel, but he took it, as he informs us, from Josephus Ant. i. 4. who says, Περί δε τε πύργο τότε και της αλλοφωνίας των ανθρώπων, μέμνηται και Σίβυλλα λέγουσα έτως, Πάντων ομοφώνων όντων των ανθρώπων, σύργον ώκοδόμησάν τινες υψηλότατον, ως επί τον έρανόν αναβησόμενοι δι αυτηοι δε θεοί αιίμους επιπέμψαντες ανέτρεψαν τον πύργον, και ιδίαν εκάσω φωνήν έδωκαν, και δια τατο Βαβυλώνα (υνέβη κληθήναι την πόλιν. De turri autem hac, deque linguis hominum mutatis meminit etiam Sibylla, ad hunc modum dicens : Cum universi homines uno eloquio uterentur, turrim edificarunt quidam excelsissiman, quasi ad cælum per eam ascensuri. Dä vero procellis emissis turrim everterunt, et suum cuique linguam dederunt. Quie causu fuit, ut urbs eu Babylonis nomen acciperet.
The verses relating to this subject are preserved by Theophilus ad Autolycum ij. 31.
'Αλλ' οπόταν μεγάλοια θεε τελέωνίαι απειλεί,
Sed quando magni Dei perficiuntur mince,
Terra mortalibus įmpleta fuit sub rariis regibus.
Hence it may be concluded that a Sibylline oracle concerning the tower of Babel was extant in the days of Josephus, and hence Beverege makes some inferences in favour of the Sibylline verses cited by the ancient fathers, which are by no means conclusive and satisfactory. Cod. Can. Illustr. i, 14.
Was the oracle mentioned by Josephus in prose or in verse? We cannot certainly tell, but it is most probable that it was in verse, and that Josephus gave us the sense and substance of it in prose. Had Josephus those verses before him which are preserved by Theophilus? Beverege says he had, and so thinks Isaac Vossius; and it may be so. But then the verses seem to have undergone some alteration afterwards ; for the Sibyl in Josephus says that from the confiision of languages the place was called Babylon; the Sibyl in Theophilus says it not: the Sibyl in Josephus says that oi Oisi, the gods, overthrew the edi