Synoptic dialog

Synoptic dialog

por
The tendency lies on the surface; the truth rests deep in the body of the work.To me it seems that the Letter is the work of a Jew who lived about half a century after the events recited, but who relied almost exclusively on heathen and contemporary sources of information, the authenticity of which is coming more and more to be or even demonstrable. Even the pseudepigraphic theory must be based on general rather than specific grounds. Wendland cites two specific cases in which he thinks that Aristeas momentarily forgets his role and discriminates his own later age from the age of Philadelphus (?? 28, 182 Wendland; Thackeray, p. 524, 1. 18 seq., and p. 550, 1. 6). These passages are inconclusive. The phrase & /ev T’rKal Pv 6pase (like the Hebrew Tlt’ b1l’n ‘l) does not necessarily imply any long interval, while in the earlier passage Josephus is supported by a small amount of MS. authority in using the present tense.At all events, the compiler of the Letter, though a Jew, relies entirely on non-Jewish sources of information. This is clearly shownby two large incidental sections of the Letter, the Table-discourses and the description of Palestine. As Wendland himself points out(Pseudep. II, p. 3) in the Table incident the writer utilizes only Greek materials, and the “Jewish Gnomic wisdom seems scarcely used at all.” So, too, with regard to the description of Palestine; the Jewish Scriptures are not used at all, and the heathen standpoint is so well mentioned that “Aristeas” if a forger was a most artistic one.Sir[...]