Communications from God. The term refers both to divine responses to a question asked of God and to pronouncements made by God without His being asked. In one sense, oracles were prophecies since they often referred to the future; but oracles sometimes dealt with decisions to be made in the present. Usually, in the Bible the communication was from Yahweh, the God of Israel. In times of idol worship, however, Israelites did seek a word or pronouncement from false gods (Hosea 4:12 ). Many of Israel's neighbors sought oracles from their gods. Although the word oracle is not very frequent in the Old Testament, oracles were common in that period. This difference occurs because the Hebrew words translated “oracle” may also be translated as “burden,” “saying,” “word,” etc. Translations are not consistent in how they render these Hebrew words. Both the NRSV and the NAS translate the same Hebrew word as “oracle” in Numbers 24:3 , but it is rendered “declare” in 1 Samuel 2:30 . Jeremiah 23:33-34 makes a play on a Hebrew word which may be translated either “burden” or “oracle.” The NAS uses “oracle,” but the NRSV and KJV use “burden.” Moreover, in the KJV the English word oracle is used to refer to the holy of holies in the Temple. Concordance study shows the following meaning and use of “oracle.” Sometimes “oracle” refers to the whole of a prophetic book (Malachi 1:1 NRSV) or a major portion of one ( Habakkuk 1:1 NRSV). In Isaiah, several smaller prophecies of judgment or punishment are called “oracles” ( Isaiah 13:1 NRSV; Isaiah 14:28 NRSV). The NRSV also entitles Zechariah 9:1 and Zechariah 12:1 “An Oracle.” Specific sayings about God's judgment on Joram ( 2 Kings 9:25 NRSV) and Joash ( 2 Chronicles 24:27 NRSV) are also called oracles. Other examples, although the word oracle is not used, include Elijah's word to Ahab ( 1 Kings 21:17-19 ) and Elisha's word to Jehoram (2 Kings 3:13-20 ). On the basis of these kinds of usages, many Bible students understand oracles to be divine words of punishment or judgment. However, Balaam's oracle (Numbers 24:3-9 ) is a blessing. Also references to Ahithophel's counsel (2 Samuel 16:23 ) and to oracles in Jerusalem which were pleasing but false (Lamentations 2:14 ) show us that prophetic pronouncements were not always negative. The New Testament does not reflect quite the same use of oracles or the word oracle as does the Old. The early church did have prophets like Agabus (Acts 21:10-11 ), who expressed God's word regarding what was to come. The word oracles in the New Testament most often refers to the teachings of God in the Old Testament (Acts 7:38 ; Romans 3:2 ). It may refer to Christian teachings, too (Hebrews 5:12 ). Why Were Oracles Given? We must distinguish between oracles that were sought and those that came without any request. The first kind might be called “decision oracles.” The second kind will be referred to as “pronouncement oracles.” Decision oracles came when people asked God a question or sought His counsel. For example, David needed to know the right time to attack the Philistines. So he asked God. The answers he received were oracles (2Samuel 5:19,2 Samuel 5:23-24 ). Saul, the first king of Israel, was chosen through an oracle (1 Samuel 10:20-24 ). In that case, the communication from God was through the casting of lots. The falling of the lots was considered an oracle from God. Decision oracles, then, were God's response to questions and concerns in the present. They did not condemn sin or predict the future in any specific sense. Pronouncement oracles were God's word to a situation or a person even though no word (from God had been sought. (But, see comments below on Balaam's oracle.) The pronouncement oracles were sometimes brief as when Elijah foretold a drought in Israel (1 Kings 17:1 ). The message could be long; thus the whole Book of Malachi is a pronouncement oracle. This kind of oracle usually told what was going to happen. It also frequently condemned sin. It expressed God's view of present acts or circumstances. In that sense, many of the prophecies in the Old Testament were pronouncement oracles. Because they were God's word, these pronouncements were true, even though they could be changed as in the case of Jonah's pronouncement over Nineveh (Jonah 3:4-9 ). Pronouncement oracles were given to produce an effect. People were to hear and to change their ways. With that in mind, the pronouncement oracles against foreign nations form a special group. Many of the writing prophets have pronouncements against (or concerning) nations surrounding Israel (Amos 1:1 ; Isaiah 13-19 ; Jeremiah 46-51 ). These foreign nations had little chance to hear and heed the word of an Israelite prophet. Other nations had their own gods and their own prophets. Apparently, the pronouncements over foreign nations were intended to have an effect on the people of Israel as well as bring about the events described. At times, Israel or Judah heard their name included among foreign nations (for example, Amos 2:4-16 ). God cared for the other nations even though they cared little for Him. God's expression of concern by pronouncing judgment (or salvation as in Isaiah 19:19-22 ) was intended to remind Israel of her mission to share God with others. At least, these words reminded the hearers of God's international, even universal, power and expectations. Balaam's oracle (Numbers 24:1 ) is a special case. Balak sought a pronouncement through the prophet Balaam. Balak's intention was to curse or to pronounce judgment on the Israelites. God did not allow this but gave Balaam an oracle of blessing to pronounce. Balaam's oracle, then, was positive and sought—a positive pronouncement oracle. The seeking of a pronouncement like this may have been more common than we know. Oracles came either in response to human questions or when God wished to make His views known to produce a change. How Were Oracles Given or Received? Oracles were given through special people. Although anyone could seek a word from God and many, such as Gideon or Abraham, received an oracle directly; these divine communications usually came through either priests, prophets, or prophetesses. These two groups seemed to have their own specific ways of receiving oracles. In the earlier period, priests were more often sought out to receive a word from God. Later, the prophets were more prominent. Of course, for a long period both functioned as intermediaries. One caution about prophets and their pronouncements must be made. Often the prophets were not prophets until they received God's word (consider Amos' experience in Amos 7:14-15 ). The word came to some reluctantly as in the case of Jeremiah. God's giving of an oracle to a man or woman made them a prophet; for, when the divine word came, the prophet had to speak (Amos 3:8 ). Different methods were used by priests and prophets to receive the two forms of oracles, although we should not try to make too rigid a distinction. Decision oracles often came through the use of objects. Examples of such objects include the High Priest's Urim and Thummim and the ephod. Lots, too, were used. See Urim and Thummim ; Ephod ; Lots . Decision oracles could also come through a person without the use of any objects. David sought the Lord's will at the point of building a temple. His answer came through Nathan, the prophet (2 Samuel 7:1 ). In 1 Kings 22:1 , a dramatic conflict arose while the kings of Judah and Israel together sought a decision oracle. No objects were used in this case. The drama came from a true prophet receiving one answer regarding the decision and a large number of false prophets giving a different answer. Prophets did sometimes use music as a means of receiving a decision oracle as did Elisha (2 Kings 3:15 ). However, the exact way music was used is unclear to us. Frequently, the Old Testament gives no indication as to how God communicated His pronouncement oracles to His prophet or priest. Careful reading of the Old Testament shows a variety of methods in use. Audition—the actual hearing of a voice—and visions undoubtedly played a part in the receiving of God's words. We cannot know how much of God's revelation came through the actual ear or eye or how much came through the mind. Balaam spoke when the Spirit came upon him (Numbers 24:2 ). He described himself as one whose eye was opened, one who heard God's word and saw His vision. Nahum and Habakkuk wrote of a vision or of seeing their oracles (Nahum 1:1 ; Habakkuk 1:1 ). Through Jeremiah, God condemned those prophets who relied on dreams to receive an oracle (Jeremiah 23:23-32 ). However, Solomon earlier had received God's pronouncement in a dream (1 Kings 3:5 .). Several times God used scenes which the prophet saw as a means of giving a pronouncement oracle. Some of the scenes were external (Jeremiah 18:1-12 ), and some were visionary (Ezekiel 37:1-14 ). The frequent use of sights in pronouncements has led some to believe that the prophets had encounters with God that later they had to interpret and communicate to others. Regardless of how the oracle came, it was to be expressed to others. This expression seems most often to have been oral. The priest or prophet told the oracle to either the individual or a group. The place may have been in a field or a king's throne room. The pronouncement oracles were often proclaimed in the city, even in a temple (Amos in Bethel and Jeremiah in Jerusalem). Many of the oracles, though, give us no indication of where or when they were spoken. Oracles which were not simply yes or no seem most often to have been given in poetic form. This is especially true of the pronouncements of the writing prophets which have been preserved for us. Though given orally in the beginning, at some time the pronouncement oracles were written down. They may have been written by disciples of the prophet or by others who heard. They may have been written when they were first told or at a later time. Whatever the case, the oracles were given by God and preserved for us. How Did People Respond to the Oracles? Again, a distinction should be made between the decision and the pronouncement oracles. Those who were seeking God's help or counsel in a decision-making process undoubtedly acted on what they learned. Others, who heard oracles they had neither sought nor welcomed, may not have been as quick to accept the pronouncement (consider Elijah's words to Ahab, 1 Kings 21:20-24 ). Most often the response of those who heard or read the oracles of God can be guessed at. Two points should be recognized. First, oracles were remembered long after their pronouncement. When Jehu killed Joram (2 Kings 9:25 ), he had the body taken to Naboth's vineyard in order that an oracle pronounced in Ahab's day might be fulfilled. Second, though we do not know the response of the original hearers, God's pronouncements are still being read and are producing change in people in our day. Thus, the oracles are still functioning. See Inspiration; Priest; Prophet; Spirit . Albert Bean

See Pseudepigrapha .

(1) divine utterances, as those by Urim and Thummim and the ephod of the high priest: 1 Samuel 23:9; 1 Samuel 30:7-8. (2) The place where they were given (2 Samuel 16:23; 1 Kings 6:16), "the most holy place." In the New Testament the Spirit-inspired Scriptures (Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11) of the Old Testament are so called. Others translated, "let him speak as (becomes one speaking) oracles of God," which designates the New Testament words (afterward written) of inspired men by the same term as was applied to the Old Testament Scriptures; in the Greek there is no article. The pagan "oracles" ceased when Christianity supplanted paganism. Paul's casting out "the spirit of pithon" (divination) implies that the ancient oracles were not always imposture, but were sometimes energized by Satanic powers (Acts 16:16).

Prophecies delivered, it is said, by certain women of antiquity, showing the fates and revolutions of kingdoms. We have a collection of them in eight books. Dr. Jorton observes, that they were composed at different times by different persons; first by Pagans, and then, perhaps, by Jews, and certainly by Christians. They abound with phrases, words, facts, and passages, taken from the LXX, and the New Testament. They are, says the Doctor, a remarkable specimen of astonishing impudence and miserable poetry, and seem to have been, from first to last, and without any one exception, mere impostures.

At the close of the 5th (6th?) cent. Gospel (cf. vol. i. p. 489) which is entitled The History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Saviour predicts that Antichrist will murder four persons and shed their blood like water, in revenge for their exposure of his evil policy. The apostles ask who these four persons are, and the Lord replies, ‘They are Enoch, Elijah, Schila, and Tabitha.’ ‘Schila’ has puzzled editors of this Arabic document. It is commonly taken as a man’s name, and he has been identified with the NT ‘Silas,’ although there is no obvious reason either in the NT or in later tradition why Silas should be in such exalted company. E. Nestle (ZNTW ^[1] xi. ^[2] 240) suggests that he was the son of the widow of Nain; but this is pure conjecture, and Nestle’s companion idea that ‘Tabitha’ represents the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:41, ταλειθά κούμ) is a precarious support. Tabitha is certainly the woman of Joppa (Acts 9:36-41) whom St. Peter raised from the dead. In the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah she encounters Antichrist, and in a fragment of some Sahidic apocalypse, quoted by Crum (ZNTW ^[1] xii. ^[4] 352), she is ranked with Enoch and Elijah as having entered heaven in the body. Crum further solves the problem of ‘Schila’ by noting that when the Arabic noun is pointed differently it becomes equivalent to ‘Sibylla,’ who is elsewhere associated with Enoch. This yields an excellent sense for the passage, two men being followed by two women. But what is the Sibyl, a pagan figure, doing in this Christian connexion? How did she come to till so strange a rôle? The answer to these questions is the subject of the present article. The etymology of the word ‘Sibyl’ is a disputed point. (a) The oldest derivation is the attractive one given by Varro (quoted in Lact. Div. Inst. i. 6), that the term is a generic title for prophetesses, which comes from the Doric or aeolic σιός = θεός, and βολλά (βούλλα) = βουλή, i.e. ‘the counsel of God.’ (b) J. P. Postgate (AJPh ^[5] iii. ^[6] 333-334), unable to accept (a), since σιός is Laconian, not aeolic, and since the loss of an accented syllable is unlikely, prefers the roots σιβ-υλο-γα (the feminine suffix) = ‘the wise (little) woman,’ the suffix -υλο being used in a diminutive sense, and σιβ- being connected with sap, ‘to be wise.’ (c) The idea of wisdom is brought in by those philologists, like Max Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language, new ed., London, 1882, vol. i. p. 109), who connect σιβ with a primitive Italian sabus or sabius, ‘wise’; but there is no trace of this Italian term as the origin of the diminutive, and ‘Sibulla’ does not seem to occur in any Italian dialect. (d) E. Hofmann (see below) accepts the first part of (a), but makes the word a composite from σιός and ἵλλαος = ἱλαος (ἵλεως), meaning ‘God-appeasing,’ or ‘God-reconciling,’ with reference to the aim of the primitive Sibylline oracles. Others find the thought of age dominant and (e), like S. Krauss, derive it from sib-il, ‘the ancient of God,’ sib or šib = ‘old,’ and -ιλ as in Βαβυλών, for which the inscriptions furnish the form ‘Bâb-il’ (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xi. ^[7] 122), or (f), like H. Lewy in Philologus, lvii. ^[8] 350 f., connect σίβυλλα with the Semitic (Aramaic) root of sâbetâ, ‘grandmother,’ although this leaves the reduplication of the β unexplained. None of these, or of the other ancient and modern etymologies which have been proposed, is satisfactory. Σίβιλλα occurs as a woman’s name in an Attic inscription from the 4th cent. b.c., but, while this suggests that Sibyl may have been a proper name to begin with, it is insufficient to prove that Sibyl was a Greek term, not an Oriental. Eventually the name was applied la any woman or prophetic gifts, according to Servius (on aen. iii. 445: ‘Sibylla … dicitur omnis puella cuius pectus numen recipit’) and Suidas (ἐνὶ ὀνόματι αἱ θηλείαι μάντιδες ὠνομάσθησαν Σιβύλλαι). But originally it was restricted to a small class or prophetesses, whom we may call: 1. The classical Sibyl(s).-Towards the end of the 6th, or about the beginning of the 5th, cent. b.c., the foundation of the Capitoline temple in Rome was associated with the influence of Sibylline utterances and the infusion of Greek rites (Graecus ritus) into Roman religion. The origin of these was Eastern. During the 6th cent. ‘Greece was not only full of Orphism and Pythagoreanism, but of floating oracular dicta believed to emanate from a mystic female figure, a weird figure of whom it is hard to say how far she was human or divine; and of whose origin we know nothing, except that her original home was, as we might expect, Asia Minor’ (W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, London, 1911, p. 257). This was the Sibyl. Like the Pythia, she was a woman, considered to be inspired by Apollo. Subsequently, she was supposed to be extremely old, on the principle, probably, that long experience added to her prophetic capacities. As time went on, her personality multiplied; in the 4th cent. b.c. Heraclides Ponticus, the historian, knew of three, and Varro reckoned as many as ten [Note: The variant tradition of nine reached Shakespeare. The Bastard in King Henry VI. (pt. i. act i. scene ii. lines 55-57), describing Joan of Arc, says: ‘The spirit of deep prophecy she hath, Exceeding the nine sibyls of old Rome: What’s past and what’s to come she can descry.’] Sibyls. Primitive tradition located the original Sibyl at Erythrae, but the most famous Sibyl resided at Cumae, the old Greek settlement in Campania, though it is probable that the Sibylline oracles which came to Rome from Cumae had reached the latter city from Erythrae. ^[8] 90-113.] The Roman collection, which legend linked to the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, perished in the Capitol fire of 83 b.c. But they had become too important for the purposes of religion to be lost, and a commission of three State officials replaced them by a fresh collection of a thousand verses, gathered from Erythrae, Samos, Ilium, Africa, Sicily, and elsewhere. Instructions were given that only genuine productions were to be admitted to thus new edition of the libri Sibyllini or libri fatales. ^[10] 289 ff.] But such precautions as were taken do not seem to have been more than partially successful. Oracles of this kind absorbed forgeries of a more or less political aim, and the authorized collection had to be purged from time to time. In 13 b.c. Augustus included this among his religious reforms, and Tiberius had to prevent an anonymous Sibylline book from being added to the list; the Emperor showed himself more sceptical than the quindecimuiri sacris faciundis, ^[11] who were officially responsible for the interpretation of the oracles and for the application of their mysterious commands to the national life. In times of disaster and misfortune, or when prodigies occurred, the Romans turned to this sacred collection. Whatever measures it dictated-fasts, feasts, expiations, or the like-were carried out with trembling, anxious care, as during the panic roused by Hannibal’s campaign in Northern Italy. The Sibylline collection met, or was skilfully manipulated to meet, the popular appetite for appeasing the supernatural, which prodigies and defeats created from time to time. These Roman oracles originally were not so much predictions of woes to come, like apocalyptic tracts, as explanations of what was required to avert the anger of the gods and ward off evil to the State on earth. They were not ‘vaticinia’ but ‘remedia Sibyllina,’ as Pliny puts it (Historia Naturalis (Pliny) xi. 35). They were also esoteric literature; the consent of the Senate was required before a line of their contents could be divulged to the general public. This put considerable power into the hands of the officials who had charge of them, especially as the obscurity of their contents made the sense of certain passages conveniently ambiguous, and it is not surprising to find that, as time went on, their reputation suffered in the same way as the Greek oracles; the Roman, like the Greek, Sibyllina might ‘philippize’; genuine lines might be interpreted for private ends, if a political leader could influence the expositors, and forged lines could be surreptitiously introduced. Still, for two centuries at least, these oracles had a singular power over the religious hopes and fears of the people. An odd story like that preserved by Petronius ^[7] in the 1st cent. a.d. must not be allowed to count unduly against the esteem which was still felt for the oracles. But their influence was upon the wane. Thus, in a.d. 270, when the Alemanni invaded Italy, the Senate hesitated to consult the Sibyllina, and Aurelian had to incite them (Vopiscus, Vita Aureliani, 20); the Emperor taunted them with behaving as if they were in a Christian church-a significant indication of the changed attitude towards these oracles! Their use lingered down to the age of Julian. Then the Christian reaction proved fatal to them, and Stilicho is said to have burned the entire official collection at the beginning of the 5th century. His action was bitterly resented, as we can see from the indignant verses of Rutilius Numantianus, but the protect did not affect the fact; Stilicho’s action had made it impossible for the authorities to appeal in future to this ancient relic of pagan divination. ^[13] Besides the official collection, however, Sibylline oracles passed current in large numbers among the people. Lactantius, who has preserved several important data on the subject, declares that only the Cumaean Sibyl’s oracles, amounting to three books, were kept secret, ^[14] while the writings of the other Sibyls for the most part circulated freely. It is true, as we have seen, that the very diffusion of such verses led to the partial discrediting of the entire literature as a religious authority of impartial value, but long before this shadow fell upon the Sibyllina at Rome the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria had taken advantage of the current Sibylline verse as a literary genre and started a new, ingenious development of the method. 2. The Jewish Sibylline oracles.-We come upon Jewish Sibylline oracles before we hear of a Jewish Sibyl. The latter is first mentioned by Alexander Polyhistor, the Greek author of Χαλδαϊκά, in the 1st cent. b.c., who quotes what is apparently an oracle still extant in Sib. Orac. iii. 97 ff. It is necessary to say ‘apparently,’ for serious doubts have been thrown recently upon Alexander’s indebtedness to a Jewish source; both Geffcken [Note: In his ‘Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina’ (TU xxiii. 1 ^[7] 2 f.).] and Bousset [Note: In an essay in E. Preuschen’s ZNTW iii. ^[7] 23-49.] prefer to find traces of a Babylonian (Greek) Sibylline oracle, and Schürer’s criticism of this theory does not succeed in ruling it out of court. The exact relations between the Jewish Sibyl and the Chaldaean have not yet been cleared up. Pausanias vouches for four Sibyls, the Erythraean Herophile, the Cumaean Demo, a Libyan prophetess, and ‘subsequent to Demo, an oracular woman among the Hebrews, named Sabbe; Berosus is said to have been the father, Erymanthes the mother, of Sabbe, Some call her the Babylonian, others the Egyptian Sibyl’ (x. 12). A later variant for ‘Sabbe’ is ‘Sambethe,’ which is variously explained. But among these uncertainties the fact shines clear, that by the 2nd cent. b.c. the literary method of the Sibylline oracles had been exploited by one or more Jewish authors at Alexandria, in the interests of religious apologetic and propaganda. Like the older Philo, Theodotus, and possibly the author of the pseudo-Phocylidaean verses, the Jews who composed these Sibylline oracles of their own could write Greek hexameters. ^[17] They chose this pagan form in order not only to convey threats of doom against persecuting powers like Assyria and Rome, but also to win a hearing among outside circles for their own monotheism and moralism. Why should not the Sibyl, this recognized exponent of Divine things, voice the true inspiration of Israel as well as the secondary revelation of the nations? Why should not this authoritative channel convey the living water of Jewish truth, or rather of truth as only the Jews knew it? And so this form of pseudonymous literature came into vogue. ^[18] But the vogue did not last very long. The same fate befell the Sibylline oracles of Judaism that befell the apocalypses: their popularity with the early Christian Church appears to have thrown them out of favour with the officials of Rabbinic Judaism.|| ^[14] The Church appropriated them, appealed to them, edited them in her own interests, composed fresh ones, and, in general, treated the Jewish Sibylline oracles much as the Alexandrian Jews had treated the pagan ones. It is true that the composition of Jewish Sibyllines continued sporadically till the reign of Marcus Aurelius at any rate, and even later. But the extant collection is due to Christians, and one of the intricate problems of this literature is to determine how far Christians have edited sources which were originally Jewish. As in the case of the apocalypses, the criteria are far from being satisfactory. The Sibylline oracles are a conglomerate of documents, ranging from the 2nd cent. b.c. to the middle of the 7th cent. a.d. Some sections (e.g. the earliest, in bk. iii.) are evidently Jewish, others as evidently Christian; hut large passages seem to show no distinct soil in one or the other religion. Some of them are not definitely pre-Christian, and even those that are to be dated in the Christian era may be Jewish compositions worked over by a Christian hand. An instance of the difficulty of deciding whether a passage of the Sibyllina was written by a Jew or by a Christian is afforded by the first of the fragments which Theophilus of Antioch has preserved (ad Autol. ii. 36): ‘O mortal men of flesh, mere things of nought, How quick your pride, regardless or life’s end! Have ye no fear of God, who knows each thought, Who sees all, rules all, ^[20] who doth all transcend, Nourishing all he made, and in all men Sets the sweat ^[21] Spirit to direct their ways? One God there is, Lord above mortal ken, Unborn, alone in power, from mortal gaze Hidden himself, who yet beholdeth all. The immortal God no eye of flesh can view, Who dwells above, the heavenly God, the true; For mortal nerves will weakly flinch and fall Even before the sun’s refulgent ball. ^[1] Ah, worship him who o’er the world holds sway, Unborn, eternal, self-created Being, Sustaining Lord, who in our common day ^[23] Assigns to mortals each the power of seeing. ^[24] Bitterly for ill error shall ye pay, For all forsaking of his altars true, For hecatombs and offerings ye lay On altars of dead idols as their due. Besotted, proud, ye left the straight highway To wander blindly among thorns; ah, cease. Cease, oh ye foolish men, to roam astray, From darkness and black night seek ye release, Lay hold upon the Light, ^[25] unerring, clear, For all to mark his presence now and here. Turn not for ever to the murky night: When lo the sun’s sweet rays are shining bright! Be wise at heart, be wise and understand: There in one God, who sends upon the land The rain, the wind, the lightning and the might Of earthquake, famine, pestilence, and wce, Sad wce that weighs the heart, the had, the snow,- All, ^[26] all are his, who reigns over his own, Sovereign of heaven and earth himself alone.’ A passage like this breathes so much of the monotheistic moralism which was common to Orphism, Judaism, and Christianity that we have no definite criteria for assigning it to either a Jewish or a Christian Sibyllinist; either might have written it, subordinating his dogmatic idiosyncrasies to the need of preserving the dramatic probabilities of the situation. The spirit of the piece is deliberately neutral. On the other hand, there can be no doubt with regard to a passage like this from bk. iii. 263 ff., which describes the fortunes of the twelve tribes: ‘To them alone a hundred told the field Bears harvest, and God’s measures ample yield. Yet even they shall fare amiss, even they Shall suffer pestilence. Thou, ^[27] far away From thy fair shrine shalt flee, for ‘tis thy fate To leave thy sacred soil all desolate; Borne to Assyria, thou shalt there behold Thy wives and children into slavery sold, And greedy hands despoiling all thy gold. Thou shalt fill every country, every sea, And at thy customs all shall angry be. Oracles