! CHAPTER VIII. ON THE APOCRYPHA.1 I. Account of the First Book of Esdras. -II. Of the Second Book - I. IT is not known at what time the FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS was written it is only extant in Greek, and in the Alexandrian manuscript it is placed before the canonical book of Ezra, and is there called the first book of Ezra, because the events related in it occurred prior to the return from the Babylonish captivity. In some editions of the Septuagint it is called the first book of the priest (meaning Ezra), the authentic book of Ezra being called the second book. In the additions of the Latin Vulgate, previous to the council of Trent, this and the following book are styled the third and fourth books of Esdras, those of Esdras and Nehemiah being entitled the first and second books. The author of this book is not known;, it is compiled from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which however it contradicts in many instances. The first book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of the temple, and the re-establishment of divine worship. The style of this book is much purer than that of the greater part of the Septuagint version, and is said frequently to approach that of Symmachus, the most elegant of all the Greek translators of the Bible. Although this book is often cited by the fathers, it is rejected by Jerome as being spurious, and the church of Rome never recognised its canonical authority it is not appointed to be read for lessons in the Anglican church. There is a Syriac version of this book extant. II. The SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS is supposed to have been originally written in Greek, though at present it is only extant in Latin, of which there is an Arabic version, differing very materially from it, and having many interpolations. The author of this book is unknown; although he personates Ezra, it is manifest from the style and contents of his book that he lived long after that celebrated Jewish reformer. He pretends to visions and revelations, but they are so fanciful, indigested, ridiculous, and absurd, that it is clear that the Holy Spirit 1 For a critical account of the reasons why the Apocryphal Books, which are usually printed between the Old and New Testaments, are justly rejected from the canon of Scripture, as uninspired writings, see Vol. I. Appendix, No. V. Section I. pp. 626-629. could have no concern in dictating them. He believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that the souls of good and wicked men would all be delivered out of hell after the day of judgment. Numerous rabbinical fables occur in this book, particularly the account of the six days' creation, and the story of Behemoth and Leviathan, two monstrous creatures that are designed as a feast for the elect after the day of resurrection, &c. He says that the ten tribes are gone away into a country which he calls Arsareth (xiii. 40-45.), and that Ezra restored the whole body of the Scriptures, which had been entirely lost. (xiv. 21.) And he speaks of Jesus Christ and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the Gospel itself is scarcely more explicit. On these accounts, and from the numerous vestiges of the language of the New Testament, and especially of the Revelation of Saint John, which are discoverable in this book, Moldenhawer and some other critics conclude that it was written by some converted Jew, in the close of the first century, who assumed the name of Esdras or Ezra. III. Concerning the author of the book of TOBIT, or the time when he flourished, we have no authentic information. It professes to relate the history of Tobit and his family, who were carried into captivity to Nineveh by Shalmanezer; but it contains so many rabbinical fables, and allusions to the Babylonian demonology, that many learned men consider it as an ingenious and amusing fiction, calculated to form a pious temper, and to teach the most important duties. From some apparent coincidences between this book and some parts of the New Testament, Moldenhawer is disposed to refer it to the end of the first century: but Jahn and most other commentators and critics think it was written about 150 or 200 years before the birth of our Saviour. According to Jerome, who translated the book of Tobit into Latin, it was originally written in Chaldee by some Babylonian Jew. It was probably begun by Tobit, continued by his son Tobias, and finished by some other individual of the family; after which it was digested into the order in which we now have it. There is a Greek version of this book extant, much more antient than Jerome's Latin translation: for it is referred to by Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and other fathers, who lived long before the time of Jerome. From this Greek version the Syriac translation was made, and also that which is found among the apocryphal books in our English Bibles. Although the book of Tobit has always been rejected from the sacred canon, it was cited with respect by the early fathers of the Christian church; the simplicity of its narrative, and the pious and moral lessons it inculcates, have imparted to it an interest, which has rendered it one of the most popular of the apocryphal writings. IV. The BOOK OF JUDITH professes to relate the defeat of the Assyrians by the Jews, through the instrumentality of their countrywoman Judith, whose genealogy is recorded in the eighth chapter; but so many geographical, historical, and chronological difficulties attend this book that Luther, Grotius and other eminent critics, have considered it rather as a drama or parable than a real history. Dr. Prideaux, however, is of opinion that it carries with it the air of a true history in most particulars, except that of the long-continued peace said to have been procured by Judith; which according to the account given in this book, must have continued eighty years. But, as. the Jews never enjoyed a peace of so long continuance since they were a nation, he is disposed to allow that circumstance to be a fiction, though he is inclined to think that the book in other respects is a true history. In opposition to this opinion, it has been contended by Heidegger, Moldenhawer, and others, that if it were a true history, some notice of the victory it records would have been taken by Josephus, who is on no occasion deficient when an opportunity presents itself of magnifying the achievements of his countrymen. Philo is equally silent concerning this book and its author. The time when and the place where he lived are totally unknown. Dr. Prideaux refers the book to the time of Manasseh; Jahn assigns it to the age of the Maccabees, and thinks it was written to animate the Jews against the Syrians. Grotius refers it to the same period, and is of opinion that it is wholly a parabolic fiction written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when he came into Judæa to persecute the Jewish church, and that its design was to confirm the Jews, under that persecution, in their hope that God would send them a deliverer. According to him, by Judith is intended Judæa: by Bethulia, the temple or house of God; and by the sword which went out thence, the prayers of the saints; Nebuchadonosor denotes the devil; Assyria his kingdom, that is, pride; Holofernes means Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the devil's instrument in that persecution, &c. &c. But such conjectures, as an able commentator1 remarks, however ingenious, are better calculated to exhibit the powers of fancy and the abuse of learning, than to investigate truth, or throw light on what is uncertain and obscure. The book of Judith was originally written in Chaldee, and translated into Latin. Besides this translation there are two others, one in Greek, and the other in Syriac; the former is attributed to Theodotion, but is certainly much older, for it is cited by Clement of Rome in this epistle to the Corinthians, who flourished sixty years before Theodotion. The Syriac version was made from the Greek, whence also our present English translation was made.2 V. "THE REST OF THE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee," were originally written in Greek, whence they were translated into Latin, and formed part of the Italic or old Latin version in use before the time of Jerome. Being there annexed to the canonical book, they passed without censure, but were rejected by Jerome in his version, because he confined himself to the Hebrew Scriptures, and these chap 1 Mr. Hewlett, in his Preface to the book of Judith. 2 Grotii. Præfatio ad Annotationes in Librum Judith, apud Crit. Sacr. tom. v. p. 50. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Vet. Test. pp. 155-158. Dr. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i. pp. 36-40. Jahn Introd. ad Vet. Fœd. pp. 554–561. ters never were extant in the Hebrew language. They are evidently the production of an Hellenistic Jew, but are considered both by Jerome and Grotius as a work of pure fiction, which was annexed to the canonical book of Esther by way of embellishment. From the coincidence between some of these apocryphal chapters and Josephus, it has been supposed that they are a compilation from the Jewish historian; and this conjecture is further confirmed by the mention of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who lived no long time before Josephus. These additions to the book of Esther are often cited by the fathers of the church; and the council of Trent has assigned them a place among the canonical books. VI. "THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON" is commonly ascribed to that Hebrew monarch, either because the author imitated his sententious manner of writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name, the better to recommend his moral precepts. It is, however, certain that Solomon was not the author, for it was never extant in Hebrew, nor received into the Hebrew canon, nor is the style like that of Solomon. Further, it is evident that it could not have been written by him, not only from the numerous passages which are cited in it from the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who did not live till long after that king's reign, but also from its contradictions of historical truth, particularly in chap. xv. 14. where the author represents his countrymen as being in subjection to enemies whom he describes as being "most foolish, and more miserable than the very babes." Whereas we are expressly informed by the sacred historian, that Judah and Israel enjoyed the greatest possible prosperity and peace during the reign of Solomon. (1 Kings iv. 20, 21. 24, 25.) To which we may add, that this book contains several words borrowed from the Grecian games, that were not in use till long after his time: for instance drepavnpogew (iv. 2.), to wear a crown, such as was given to victors,EUEN (iv. 2.), to make a triumphant entry as the victors did, after they had received the crown,aywv (iv. 2. x. 12.), the stadium or place appointed for the race-aλov (iv. 2.), the reward appropriated to the successful candidate, and BeaßEUE (x. 12.), to confer the prize of victory. On these accounts, Jerome1 informs us that several antient writers of the first three centuries ascribed it to Philo the Jew, a native of Alexandria, who flourished in the first century; and this opinion is generally adopted by the moderns, from the Platonic notions discoverable in it, as well as from its style, which evidently shows that it was the production of an Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria. Drusius indeed attributes it to another Philo, more antient than the person just mentioned, and who is cited by Josephus ; but this hypothesis is untenable, because the author of the book of Wisdom was confessedly a Jew, and the Philo of Drusius was a Heathen. The book of Wisdom consists of two parts; the first, which is written in the name of Solomon, contains a description or encomium of wisdom, by which comprehensive term the antient Jews understood 1 Pref. in Prov. Sal. 2 Drusius de Henocho, c. 11. prudence and foresight, knowledge and understanding, and principally the duties of religion and morality. This division includes the first ten chapters. The second part, comprising the rest of the book, treats on a variety of topics widely differing from the subject of the first, viz. reflections on the history and conduct of the Israelites during their journeyings in the wilderness, and their subsequent proneness to idolatry. Hence he takes occasion to inveigh against idolatry, the origin of which he investigates, and concludes with reflections on the history of the people of God. His allegorical interpretations of the Pentateuch, and the precept (xvi. 28.) to worship God before the rising of the sun, have induced some critics to think that the author was of the sect of the Essenes. This book has always been admired for its elegance, and for the admirable moral tendency of its precepts; on which account some of the antients styled it Panaretos, or the treasury of virtue. Although the fathers of the church, and particularly Jerome, uniformly considered it as apocryphal, yet they recommended its perusal, in consideration of its excellence. The third council of Carthage, held in 397, pronounced it to be a canonical book, under the name of the fourth book of Solomon, and the council of Trent confirmed this decision. Three antient translations of it are extant, in Syriac, Arabic, and Latin; the last was executed before the time of Jerome, who says that he did not correct it. It is full of barbarisms. VII. "THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH, or ECCLESIASTICUS," like the preceding, has sometimes been considered as the production of Solomon, whence the council of Carthage deemed it canonical, under the title of the fifth book of Solomon, and their decision was adopted by the council of Trent. It is however manifest that it was not, and could not be, written by Solomon, because allusion is made (xlvii. 24, 25.) to the captivity; although it is not improbable that the author collected some scattered sentiments ascribed to Solomon, which he arranged with the other materials he had selected for his work. Sonntag is of opinion that this book is a collection of fragments or miscellaneous hints for a large work, planned out and begun, but not completed.1 Respecting the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus, we have no information but what we collect from the book itself; and from this it appears that it was written by a person of the name of Jesus the son of Sirach, who had travelled in pursuit of knowledge. This man being deeply conversant with the Old Testament, and having collected many things from the prophets, blended them, as well as the sentences ascribed to Solomon, with the result of his own observation, and thus endeavoured to produce a work of instruction that might be useful to his countrymen. This book was written in Hebrew, or rather the Syro-Chaldaic dialect then in use in Judæa, and was translated by his grandson into Greek, for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, who were ignorant of the language of Judæa. The translator himself is supposed to have been a 1 De Jesu Siracidae Ecclesiastico Commentarius. 4to. Riga, 1792. |