William J. Deane · 15 of 16

The Sibylline Oracles. · Part 4

The last piece of our Oracles consists of Books xi., xii., xiii., xiv., Books ix. and x. being either wholly lost or else once contained in some of the other books (probably in Book viii.), afterwards differently arranged. This portion was that which was latest found and edited, and is last in merit as in date. Alexandre sets it as written by an Alexandrian Jew about the time of Gallienus. and Odenathus, A.D. 264. Friedlieb considers Book xi. to have been composed by an Egyptian Jew in Trajan’s days, the others by Christians about the middle of the third century. Ewald places some of them as late as A.D. 650, and sees in them traces of an opposition to Mohammedanism; but this opinion will not stand against a closer examination. The author is undoubtedly a Jew, who, by mixing with Christians, has learned some of their opinions, and modified some of his own. Thus he speaks (xii. 30 ff.) of the time when a luminous star appeared at mid-day above the brightness of the sun as synchronising with the coming of “the Word of the Most High, wearing flesh like (ὅμοιον) to that of mortals.” And in another passage he tells how in the time of Augustus “the Word of the great immortal God came upon earth.” But generally he shows himself a true Hebrew, with most of the prejudices of his nation. The date of the composition is about the middle of the third Christian century, and it seems to have been the work or composition of a single author. We need not delay long on these poems, as they consist mainly of plagiarisms from former oracles, and, where original, contain crude accounts of past and senseless conjectures concerning future events which time has completely falsified, and which are only interesting if they can be considered to represent current opinion at the period when and in the place where they were composed. They profess to embrace the whole history of man from the Deluge to the time of Aurelian, and contain some difficulties which are probably impossible of solution, and are certainly not worth the labour that commentators have bestowed upon them, as they doubtless arise either from the writer’s ignorance, or from a vivid imagination which has played havoc with history, chronology, and geography. Such as they are, they present some few points worthy of notice. We meet with that continual confusion in the names of Eastern nations with which the Christian Fathers have familiarised us, so that Parthians, Persians, Medes, and Assyrians are used almost interchangeably. Solomon is said to have secured the submission of the Assyrians, and induced them to receive the law of God. Homer, whom earlier Sibyls have treated with scant respect, is here called the wisest of men, and the great instructor of the world. But he is said to have lived after the rise of the Parthian kingdom. The computation followed in counting the years of Rome differs from that in ordinary use. Instead of taking A.U.C. 725 as the date of Augustus, the writer deliberately adopts A.U.C. 620, probably with the view of saving the credit of some prediction concerning the fall of Rome which had not occurred at the specified time. The account of the emperors of Rome from Augustus onwards is full of mistakes and unhistorical details. Among the better authenticated circumstances is found the story of the “Legio Fulminatrix,” attested also by Christian and heathen authors. The Sibyl, however, makes the marvel due to the piety and prayers of Aurelius himself, not to those of the Christians in his army; and this was the view taken by the Roman court and the Gentile world generally. A proper appreciation of Nero’s character is shown, who is called “a double pest,” in allusion, to his deeds as emperor and as Antichrist; but Domitian is highly lauded, and the whole world is said to have loved and honoured him—a proof, if one was needed, that no man is so bad but some will be found to regret his loss. The prediction concerning the final destruction of Rome is similar to one which has been already noticed in an earlier book. The catastrophe is to occur in the 948th year—a number obtained by taking the numerical value of the name in Greek. The author must have written just before the death of Odenathus, king and priest of Palmyra, A.D. 27l, which, according to Sibylline computation, would be A.U.C. 920, and thus the fall of Rome was to happen only twenty-eight years afterwards. But the whole reckoning is utterly inconsistent, as in Book xiv. a long series of princes is introduced between Aurelian and the destruction of Rome, which would have occupied some centuries. This calamity, is not, in these last books, always connected with the appearance of the Anti-Messias. This personage is more vaguely described than previously. He is no longer Nero, nor Beliar, but “that man,” “the warrior,” some mysterious, unknown person, who was to bring untold evils on the world. Some of the circumstances formerly ascribed to Nero are here assigned to Cyriades, the mock emperor set up by Sapor, king of Persia; and there are certain details about this tyrant which have been neglected by historians, but which, coming from a contemporary, have doubtless a basis of truth. Palmyra is named “the city of the sun,” and Odenathus, as its king and priest, is called “the sun-sent warrior.” That it was besieged by the Persians and defended by Odenathus is a fact not otherwise supported in the history of these times, though very probable in itself. It is curious, and corroborative of the date of the composition, that as the author approaches his own times, he abandons the use of easy alphabetical and numerical riddles in naming the emperors, and in their stead employs animals to designate royal or celebrated personages. Thus Sapor is a serpent, Valerian and his son are bulls, Macrianus is a stag, Balista a goat, Odenathus a lion. This change in indication seems to show that discretion was needed in making remarks on contemporaries. In the prophecies concerning the future, which could offend no one living, the former plan of designating princes by the initials of their names is resorted to, with the result that we are presented with a number of puzzles which are incapable of solution, and which, if solved, would only show the utter absurdity of the whole series. Out of the inextricable confusion of this pretended vaticination Ewald has attempted to produce some meaning by assigning the book to the seventh century, and endeavouring to find the names of Roman and Byzantine emperors under the enigmatical designations of the poem. The attempt is decidedly a failure, as the list of princes has evidently no historical basis, and has been evolved from the fervid imagination of the writer, whose insane ambition of acting the prophet has led him into ridiculous errors. Of Ewald’s ingenious theory Alexandre speaks thus: “Ita vir summus, quod in vario incepto necesse erat, nihil profecit, nisi ut novam sibi laudem, Sibyllinæ rei lucem nullam afferret.”

The common opinion, that after Christ’s advent the heathen oracles became silent and ceased to be consulted, is refuted by this Sibyl, who more than once refers to the answers lately given by their media. That their credit had greatly diminished, and that the ancient shrines were less frequented for fatidical purposes in the first Christian century, is true enough; but superstition dies hard, and we may take the Sibyl’s testimony as true, that up to the close of the third century oracles in Greece itself and in the islands, in Cilicia and elsewhere in Asia, were still consulted, and their responses obtained some credit. Indeed, we know from history that Titus, Adrian, and even Constantine himself were not above inquiring at the mouth of a soothsaying priestess. There was no reason in the nature of things why one author should not add his contribution to the Oracles then extant, little foreseeing how soon it would be made a criminal offence to have recourse to such means of divination. And though for a short time this enactment was abrogated by the Emperor Julian, who, on the eve of his expedition against the Persians, consulted all existing oracles, yet it was soon reimposed and enforced, and thus at length Delphic utterances were silenced.

The latter part of this final book is taken up with an account of the disputes between the Greeks and Jews dwelling at Alexandria. The latter were a very strong body, amounting to one-third of the whole population, and living in a separate quarter of the city. After many conflicts peace is established between the two rival communities, and then begins a time of happiness, which is described in glowing terms, such as are generally used in picturing the reign of Messiah. But there is no such reference in this book; and it is worthy of notice that the promised felicity should assume this novel form. After the prosperous period at Alexandria shall have endured for some long indefinite time, “the harvest of men” shall arrive, and the dead being recalled to life, a new state of things shall be introduced. “The holy nation shall reign supreme in all the earth under the eternal rule of its ancient worthies.” This is a remarkable statement, as it is deliberately altered from that in Books viii. and iii., where the advent and dominion of a “holy king” is announced; and it seems in part to favour the notion of the earlier sect of Zealots, who would have no monarch except Jehovah to reign over them; but it introduces an innovation, as it foretells for the Hebrews a kind of republic, of which the presidents should be Abraham and Moses, and other celebrated leaders risen from the dead.

Such is a brief account of the Sibylline Oracles. From what has been said it will be clear that they are to be regarded as literary productions, assuming the form of predictions, and taking the place of the lost books, but possessed of no claim to inspiration, conscious or unconscious, and intended to give a fictitious support to tenets which the pagans would receive with disfavour. The historical portion, which forms two-thirds of the whole collection, contains very little that is really valuable, though there are doubtless some additionary details which may be authentic, though otherwise unsupported. But the difficulty of severing the true from the mythical renders such paragraphs almost useless.

There are many allusions to the facts mentioned in the Gospels in these post-Christian “Oracles,” but scarcely any additions to the matters narrated therein. The most notable is the story of the fire kindled in Jordan when our Lord was baptized, a legend which is also mentioned by Justin Martyr (Dial. 88), and (though under a different tradition) in the Ebionite Gospel. Justin writes: “When Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and descended into the water, both a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and when He came up out of the water the apostles of our Christ recorded that the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon Him.” The Sibyl, as we saw above, thus alludes to the same event: “When, in the flesh which was given Him, He came forth, having bathed in the stream of the river Jordan, which rolls, sweeping on its waves with grey foot, He, escaping from the fire, first shall see the sweet Spirit of God coming upon Him with the white wings of a dove.” Nothing else of moment as an addition to the Christian story is noticeable; and the variations in the histories derived from the Old Testament are only such as are found in the Targums and other apocryphal Jewish authorities. The “Oracles,” indeed, are valuable only as showing the development and modifications of thought at the momentous period covered by their production. Jew and Christian alike availed themselves of heathen sibyllism for some four or five centuries, and the result is shown in the heterogeneous collection which has reached us under the general title of Sibylline Oracles.