where now to be found in those extant tragedies of this poet, many whereof have been lost, yet the sincerity thereof cannot reasonably be at all suspected by us, it having been cited by so many of the ancient fathers in their writings against the pagans, as particularly Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Cyril, and Theodoret, of which number Clemens tells us, that it was attested likewise by that ancient Pagan historiographer Hecateus. Intell. Syst. p. 363. Hecatæus, whom Josephus commends, Contr. Apion. i. 22. is said to have lived in the time 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 purpose, Some may 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, which are very remote from the vulgar notions concerning the gods. fathers have taken great pains to collect such testimonies, for which we are much obliged to them. The Justin, Cohort. 38. cites an oracle, which seems to be a Jewish or a Christian trifle, in which it is said that God N 4 —πρῶτον πλασας μερόπων, ̓Αδὰμ δὲ καλέσσας. Qui primum mortalem effinxit, Adamque vocavit. Justin, in the book de Monarchia, if it be his, produces a passage from Philemon, which others ascribe to Menander, wherein are these lines: Δε δ τὸν ἄνδρα χρήσιμον καθεσάναι, Acum vel unam haud concupiscas, Pamphile. The verses which I have enclosed in brackets are not in Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. v. 720. nor in Eusebius Praep. Evang. xiii. 13. nor in the collections of Grotius, or of Le Clerc. They are, I think, the handy-work of some Jew or Christian, and a sorry imitation of the tenth commandment; and, it may be, an interpolation in Justin : Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα το πλησίον (α· οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τε πλησίον (ου, ἐδὲ τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτο, ἐδὲ τὸν παῖδα αὐτο, ἐδὲ τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτο, ἔτε τὸ βοὺς αὐτο, ἔτε το υποζυγίου αὐτό, ὅτε παντὸς κλήνους αἰτε, ὅτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον (κ ἐςί· Εxod. xx. 17. Τ' ἀλλότρια βλέποντα, καπιθυμώνερα is not a verse, nor worth the mending. One might read, Τἀλλότρια βλέποντ', ἢ ἐπιθυμέμενον— He also cites some verses from Eschylus; Χώριζεθνητῶν τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ μὴ δώκι Ομοιον (αυτῷ (άρκινον καθεσάναι.. Nec tibi parem esse, carne amictum, finxeris.— 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 "Our CaUTO it should perhaps be "Quoix Caur-for the second foot will not regularly admit a spondee. Eusebius, unless my memory deceives me, has made no direct use 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, adds he, is manifest-for it is agreed by all that Cicero had read this poem.-Now the sole ground of this confident assertion is, &c. Inquiry, p. 36. The father of Ecclesiastical History deserves not 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? Constantine? See Canstantini Orat. apud Eusebium, p. 700. Edit. Cant. and Valesius there, and Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 92. Eusebius cites the Sibyl, Prep. Evang. 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, Περὶ δὲ τα πύργο τότε κ τῆς ἀλλοφωνίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μέμνηται και Σίβυλλα λέγουσα ἔτως, Πάντων ὁμοφώνων ὄντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πύργον ᾠκοδόμησαν τινες ὑψηλόταλον, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐρανὸν ἀναβησόμενοι δι' αὐτο· οἱ δὲ θεοὶ ἀκόμους ἐπιπέμψαντες ἀνέτρεψαν τον πύργον, καὶ ἰδίαν εκάτῳ φωνὴν ἔδω και, καὶ διὰ τοτο Βαβυλώνα (υνέβη κληθῆναι τὴν πόλιν. De turri autem hac, deque linguis hominum mutatis meminit etiam Sibylla, ad hunc modum dicens: Cum universi homines uno eloquio uterentur, turrim cedificarunt quidam excelsissimam, quasi ad cælum per cam ascensuri. Dü vero procellis emissis turrim everterunt, et suam cuique linguam dederunt. Que causa fuit, ut urbs ea Babylonis nomen acciperet. The verses relating to this subject are preserved by Theophilus ad Autolycum ii, 31. ̓Αλλ' ὁπόταν μεγάλοιο θες τελέωνται ἀπειλαὶ, Ας ποτ' ἐπηπείλησε βροτοῖς, ὅτε πύργον ἔπευξαν Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πύργος τ ̓ ἔπεσεν, γλῶσσαί τ' ανθρώπων Ταῖα βροτῶν πληρᾶτο μεριζομένων βασιλέων. Sed Sed quando magni Dei perficiuntur minæ, In terra Assyria. Erant autem omnes unius lingue, Statim autem Immortalis magnam imposuit necessi tatem Ventis. Venti autem magnam et altam turrim Ubi dejecerunt, etiam inter mortales discordiam ex citarunt. Rursus ubi turris cecidit, ac linguae hominum Terra mortalibus impleta fuit sub varüs 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 confusion of languages the place was called Babylon; the Sibyl in Theophilus says it not the Sibyl in Josephus says that i O, the gods, overthrew the edi |