PREFACEWRITTEN in Hebrew shortly after the beginning of the Christian era, this book was designed by its author to protest against the growing secularisation of the Pharisaic party through its fusion with political ideals and popular Messianic beliefs. Its author, a Pharisaic Quietist, sought herein to recall his party to the old paths, which they were fast forsaking, of simple unobtrusive obedience to the Law. He glorifies, accordingly, the old ideals which had been cherished and pursued by the Chasid and Early Pharisaic party, but which the Pharisaism of the first century B.C. had begun to disown in favour of a more active role in the life of the nation. He foresaw, perhaps, the doom to which his country was hurrying under such a shortsighted and unspiritual policy, and laboured with all his power to stay its downward progress. But all in vain. He but played afresh the part of Cassandra. The leavening of Pharisaism withearthly political ideals went on apace, and the movement thus initiated culminated finally in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D.It adds no little to the interest of the book that it was written during the early life of our Lord, or possibly contemporaneously with His public ministry. At all events, it was known to the writers of Jude 9, 16 and Acts vii., and most probably to the writers of 2 Peter ii. 10-11 and Matthew xxiv. 29 (Luke xxi. 25-26).It may be well here to indicate the features in which this edition differs from previous editions of the Assumption. These consist (1) in a fuller and more critical treatment of the Latin text, and of the Greek and Semitic background which it pre supposes ; (2) in an exegesis of the text at once more comprehensive and detailed.I. The Latin Text. —The Latin text has been critically edited and emended four times in Ger many. But three of these editions have failed to recognise the Semitic background of the Latin text, and have thus limited their horizon. The fourth —that of Schmidt-Merx—which has shown ample recognition of this fact, is often brilliant indeed, but oftener arbitrary, alike in its emendations and restorations. With a view to carrying forward the criticism of the Latin text, the present editor has tabulated the peculiar Latin forms it contains, andcompared them with like forms in the fifth-century Latin MS. of the Gospels, k, and also given the appropriate references to lionsch's Itala und Vul-gata and Schuchardt's Vokalismus des Vulgar-Lateins. The idiosyncrasies of the text have likewise been carefully summarised, and its derivation from the Greek exhibited on grounds in many respects new. At the next stage of the investigation I have been obliged to part company with all scholars but Eosenthal in my advocacy of a Hebrew original. That the book was derived from a Semitic original, it is no longer possible to doubt. That the language in question was Aramaic is, owing to the advocacy of Schmidt-Merx, now generally accepted, but, as it appears to me, on inadequate grounds; for I have shown, I believe, that it is possible to explain, from the standpoint of a Hebrew original, most of the crucial passages adduced by Schmidt-Merx in favour of an Aramaic, and that the remaining passages have no evidential value on the question at issue. I have shown further, I hope, that whereas many of the passages admit of explanation on either hypothesis, there are several which are explicable only on that of a Hebrew original.II. The Exegesis. —The work done in this direc tion has been very inadequate. Short studies, indeed, from time to time, have appeared in Germany and England, but these have in everyinstance confined themselves to one or more of the salient features and main statements of the book. The occasional explanatory notes in the editions of Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and Schmidt-Merx are, though often most helpful and suggestive, open to the same criticism. This exegetic meagreness of past scholarship on the subject has made the
advertisement