all mention of this second war, appears to me quite as significant a circumstance, in determining the age of the writer, as the plainest allusion to the first. If he actually wrote in the eleventh or twelfth of Hadrian, we account for this omission, as the war itself broke out only in the eleventh at the earliest ; (vide Supplem. Diss. x ;) but not, if he was writing at a later period in his reign, much less if he was writing in the reign of his successor. It should be observed too, that the first allusion to Hadrian, lib. v. 552. 1–553. 2, in the sequel of the part there quoted, is clearly of a laudatory charactero; and not such as was to be expected from a writer like the Pseudo-Sibyll, in respect to one who was known as a destroyer of the Jews. Let the reader, to be convinced of this, compare with that testimony to the character of Hadrian, the language in which Vespasian was spoken of just before, 548. 4, in the capacity of the destroyer of the Jews. And though scribe the civil wars, which prevailed in the empire, about the same period, rather than any thing else. ο ἔσται καὶ πανάριστος ἀνὴρ, καὶ πάντα νοήσει, κ', τ. λ. The character of Hadrian was of a mixed kind; yet such, that upon the whole, his good qualities, as an emperor, preponderated over his bad. The character of naváрioтos, however laudatory, would have appeared from his public conduct, for the first half of his reign, a just description of him; and as to the other circumstance, kai távra vonσe-it is expressly observed of him, by Spartian, Vita, 20; Fuit memoriæ ingentis, facultatis immensæ (which means, "unbounded capacity") nam et ipse orationes dictavit, et ad omnia respondit. He was an accomplished poet, orator, lawyer, and architect; besides his skill in the art of commanding, and the perfection to which he brought the military discipline of the Roman army. In short-with respect to all the duties which belonged to his station as emperor, it might truly be said of him that he was competent to understand every thing. the language of the second allusion to him, is certainly not laudatory, yet it describes him by no other of the worst attributes of his character, but his love of money, his addiction to magic, his superstition, and the like. The difference of strain, indeed, between these two testimonies to the character of the same person, might lead to the inference that they are not both due to the same author, (which, in fact, is far from improbable—the eighth book of the Oracles having much the appearance of a cento from different parts of the rest,) or else, that one of them was written early in the reign of Hadrian, before the worst parts of his character had been yet developed, and he was known only as a public benefactor, the other later, when his character had been altered for the worse. See Dio lxix. 1-6, and Spartian, in Vita. I have thus produced the principal part of the internal evidence supplied by the Oracles themselves, on which we might build a probable conjecture respecting the time of their composition P. We can P Lib. iii. 445. line 3, indeed, the Sibyll reckons it fifteen hundred years up to her own time, ἐξ οὗ δὴ βασίλευσαν ὑπερφίαλοι βασιλῆες but this is much too indefinite an allusion to the first commencement of monarchical governments in Greece, to ground any argument upon it, in proof of the date of the allusion itself. A much more significant passage occurs, lib. viii. 715. 1— 716. 2, where she ventures to predict that Rome should have exactly fulfilled her own name, (that is, have exactly attained to the age indicated by the sum of the numeral value of the letters in the Greek word 'Póun, which is 948,) at the time of her final destruction. This would prove that the author of the not however dismiss the subject without bestowing some consideration on one or two passages which prophecy did not live after U. C. 948, referred to some date, though he might have lived before it. And as to this date, there is every reason to suppose it to be meant of one of the two commonly received dates Urbis Condita, the Varronian, B. C. 754, or the Catonian, B. C. 752; according to the former of which, U. C. 948, would answer to A. D. 195, in the third of Severus, according to the latter, to A. D. 197, in the fifth. Cf. in reference to this passage, Dio, lvii. 18, and Ixii. 18, the former belonging to the reign of Tiberius, the latter to that of Nero. Among other probable arguments, indeed, of the age of the Oracles, we might specify the peculiar mode of describing things or persons by the numeral value of their names, as one. It seems to me, that this practice, in apocryphal productions at least, professing to be inspired compositions of some kind or another, is to be referred to the precedent of the Book of Revelation; in which the name of Antichrist or of the Beast, is similarly described by his number. In this manner, 117. 3, 4, the name of the Supreme God; and lib. i. 177. 2-178. 3, the name of Jesus, are numerically enunciated in these Oracles. Soon after the beginning of the seventh book, page 655. line 1, we meet with a prediction relating to Egypt, of the following kind; τὴν λιπαρὴν Αἴγυπτον ἀεὶ σταχύεσσι βρύουσαν, ἣν Νεῖλος νηκτοῖς ὑπὸ κύμασιν ἑπτὰ μεθύσκει, ἀλλήλων ἔμφυλος ελεῖ (ὀλεῖ) στάσις· ἔνθεν ἀέλπτως The matter of fact, here predicted, some commentators on the Oracles refer to that intestine dispute, which arose in Egypt early in the reign of Hadrian; vide Spartian, Vita, 5. 12; or rather, was in existence at the death of Trajan. It would make no difference to our argument for the assumed date of the Oracles, as collected from their internal evidence, were this reference admitted to be correct. But it is surprising to me, how any commentator should have fallen into the mistake of confounding this prediction, with the dispute mentioned by occur in them likewise, and unless explained would lead to the inference that they are of a later date, than what we have concluded to allow them. Among these passages, the most important will probably be deemed the sequel of the two allusions to Hadrian, which have just been considered; the latter of them containing, apparently, a reference to his death, lib. viii. 687. line 2, &c., which would imply the author to have been aware of that event; and to each of them a prediction being subjoined that even after Hadrian, there should be three kings; which the commentators on these prophecies have supposed to mean Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus. And in favour of this conclusion, it seems at first sight a strong argument, that on the second occasion, lib. viii. 688. 4, 5, these three kings, it is said, should reign, οὔνομα πληρώσαντες ἐπουρανίοιο θεοῖο. One of the names of the Supreme God, recognised in the Oracles, as we have seen, is Adonai, or 'Adovaios; between which, and the name of the Antonini, a sufficient degree of resemblance may be imagined, to induce us to suppose that the Sibyll meant to predict the rise of three kings, next after Hadrian, all of them bearing the name of Antoninus. Spartian, occasioned as it was; for this prediction foretells a σráσis or sedition of the Egyptians among themselves, the effect of which should be, that they should drive out from among them, Apis, before-time the object of their worship-as a god unto them no longer; that dispute, in Spartian's Life of Hadrian, had for its object which of the cities of Egypt should have the honour of receiving Apis among them, instead of the rest; Apis, after a long interval of time, having recently appeared. But there are many objections to this conclusion. First, that if the Sibylline Oracles were not composed until the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, it would not be easy to shew by what means any such collection, bearing that title, and containing a variety of testimonies to the facts or doctrines of Christianity, could have been known to Justin Martyr, who probably did not survive the death of Antoninus Pius or at the latest, suffered martyrdom early in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; or to Athenagoras, the author of the Legatio pro Christianis, which was addressed to the two emperors Aurelius and Verus, in conjunction; or to Theophilus, the writer of the work Ad Autolycum, the internal evidence of which shews him to have been a contemporary of Marcus Aurelius'. Secondly, it was not perhaps the case that the next three emperors after Hadrian, all bore the nomen as such of Antoninus. Antoninus Pius did so; and upon his adoption of Marcus Aurelius, it was assumed by him; but it does not appear to have been assumed by Lucius Verus". The name itself was borrowed from the Antonines, even by much later emperors, down to the time of Maximin himself. a Vide my Supplem. Diss. vi. 53-63. r Vide lib. iii. 26-28. Cf. Eusebii Chronicon Arm. Lat. ad ann. Abrah. 2185 and 2193, at the former of which it is stated that Theophilus was made bishop of Antioch, in the ninth of Marcus Aurelius, and at the latter that Maximus succeeded him in the seventeenth. If so, Theophilus was dead by this last date: which, however, is disproved by the testimony of his own work, loc. cit. whence it appears that he lived to witness the death of M. Aurelius at least. Cf. Eus. E. H. iv. 20. 24. s Vide Capitolinus, Marcus Anton. 5. 7: Anton. Pius, 4. Verus, 1. 4. |