The earliest of such apocalypses is the canonical book of Daniel, in which an old seer in the Chaldean captivity is employed to portray the oppressions of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. This was the model for all later ones. The literature in question was not confined to the Jews. Christians not only used the productions in which the Messiah was described after the Jewish fashion, but composed similar ones themselves,—Jewish Christians in particular. Here the Apocalypse of John is the noblest example, and deserves the honour of naming the entire range of literature.

The most obvious division of apocalyptic works is that founded upon authorship, Jewish or Christian. This, however, cannot be carried out with exactness because of later interpolations, proceeding from Christians who used the Jewish prophecies with the object of making them more suitable. But it is not easy to trace the extent of subsequent elaborations; and we have only to rely on probable conjecture.

I. Jewish Apocalyptic.

1. Enoch.— Under the name of this antediluvian patriarch a book exists which is quoted in the epistle of Jude. After it had disappeared, except the fragments preserved by ecclesiastical writers, it was found in Ethiopia among the Abyssinians, and published by Laurence in 1821; subsequently by Dillmann in 1851, to which the latter scholar added a German translation in 1853. The book has been divided into five parts, exclusive of an introduction and a conclusion. The first contains an account of the fall of the angels, and their intercourse with the daughters of men producing a race of giants, with the consequences of such apostacy; followed by a description of Enoch’s travels through heaven and earth under the guidance of holy angels, who explain to him the mysteries of the visible and invisible world (chapters vi.-xxxvi.) The “second vision of wisdom” is occupied with a description of the mysteries belonging to the heavenly kingdom, the angel-world, the Messiah, the growth and completion of His kingdom, the blessedness of the elect, and the condemnation of the unbelieving (xxxvii-lxxi.) The third part is astronomical and physical,including an account of the movements of the stars, the sun, and the moon; of the four winds, and various earthly objects (lxxii.-lxxxii.) The fourth part describes two dream visions shadowing forth the history of man, from his origin to the completion of the Messianic kingdom (lxxxiii-xci.) The fifth contains a series of admonitory discourses addressed by Enoch to his own family in the first place, and then to all inhabitants of the earth (xcii·-cv.) Several appendices are subjoined containing a narrative of the wonders which happened at Noah’s birth, and a writing of Enoch’s about the future retribution of the just and unjust (cvi.-cviii.)

The work contains much curious matter about the secrets and powers both of the visible and invisible world. Besides its historical views which relate mainly to the past, present, and future of the Jewish people, as also to heathen kings and potentates, much of the legendary and hagadic is interspersed. Daniel’s seventy weeks, reaching down to the Messianic age, are changed into seventy periods of heathen rulers. The writer has withal a religious spirit. He is a strict moralist, warning and threatening. His imagination is vivid, but incapable of sublimity. The sweep of his prophetic vision is extensive. He has poetic force and rigour. The work is an interesting product of pre-Christian Judaism, multifarious, artificial, rabbinising.

The document consists not only of the prophecy of Enoch, but of extracts from a Noah-prophecy interspersed. The latter are found in places often unsuitable, consisting of chapters liv. 7-lv. 2, lx., lxv.-lxix. 25; perhaps also of xx. and lxx. In cvi, cvii. ·the same hand may be partly traced. Setting aside these insertions, the book of Enoch itself seems to be composed of three documents, the oldest of which is chapters xxxrii.-lxxi. The other two are not easily collected, but the chapters xci. 3-cv. have the clearest claim to belong to the second, and xxxiii,-xxxri., lxxxv.-xc. to the third. The rest is all uncertain. The first was written about 144 b.c. as Ewald acutely remarks; the other two fall some years later, i.e., within the reign of John Hyrcanus (136-106 b.c. ) The Noah-document is posterior, belonging perhaps to the first century; and all were subsequently put together, forming the present heterogeneous composition. Hilgenfeld contends that chaptersxxxvii.-lxxi. proceed from a Christian Gnostic, but his arguments are insufficient. Still more improbable is the hypothesis of Volkmar, that the entire Apocalypse was written 132 a.d. We believe, however, in opposition to Dillmann, that they have been interpolated by a Jewish Christian, since the christology is higher than what Judaism produced; while the eschatology and angelology are developed in a manner which savours of Christianity. Thus, in the 51st and 62d chapters the Messiah is described as sitting on the throne of His glory and taking part in the judgment, while He is also called the Son of woman, the Son of man. To make Messiah the judge of mankind, either as the delegate of the Father, or together with Him, is not a Jewish, but a Christian idea. This differs from the representation in the 90th chapter, where he is symbolised by a white bull with great horns, whom all the beasts of the field and all the birds of heaven feared and entreated at all times. All races are to be changed into white bulls; the first among them became a great animal; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over them and all the bulls. Here Messiah is simply the chief of God’s people, elevated above the rest, but still of the same nature with them, haring no share in the judgment, or in founding the new church of God. He comes into the description by way of appendix, as it were, as though the author could not well omit all notice of Him. His part is entirely subordinate. In the 105th chapter, which, with the next three, show traces of Christian influence, the Messiah is called Son of God,— an appellation which seems to carry the idea of His person beyond Judaism, especially in connection with that in the 62d chapter, Son of woman, for the two come very near the idea of an incarnation. The whole work presents no trace of Rome as a power dangerous to Israel, so that the latest parts cannot be brought down far into the 1st century. The book had a very limited circulation among the author’s countrymen. They do not quote it. It proceeded from a private individual, who may have belonged to a small circle or sect such as the Essenes. But Jude cites it. It has been translated into English by Laurence; into German, but chiefly from Laurence’s English, by Hoffmann; and much more correctly by Dillmann in 1853. The translation of the last mentioned scholar has superseded those of his predecessors. See also Ewald’s Abhandlung, u.s.w.; Lücke’s Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, u.s.w., zweyte Auflage, § 11; Koestlin, “Ueber die Entstehung des Buches Henoch” in the Tübingen Journal of Baur and Zeller for 1856; Ξilgenfeld’s Die Jüdische Apokalyptik ; Davidson in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, article “Enoch;” Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschriftfürwiss. Theologie, 1860, 1861, 1862.

2. Another apocalyptic production is the so-called Fourth Book of Esdras, or The Prophecy of Ezra, originally written in Greek, but known now only in versions,—Latin, Ethiopie, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian. The whole consists of a series of visions, which Ezra, who is put unchronologically into the 30th year of the Babylonian captivity, is supposed to have had. The questions that troubled the seer arose out of the state in which the Jews were at the time. They were deeply oppressed and afflicted. The heathen had trodden them down to the ground. Why had the promises of God to His own people been unfulfilled? Was not Israel still the chosen race, though often sinning? Were they not better than the heathen? The Romans had destroyed Jerusalem, and the Jews were scattered to the four winds; so that the writer was deeply perplexed by the establishment of a heathen power over the Jews, involving an indefinite delay of the Messianic kingdom, or an apparent hopelessness as to its inauguration. Heathenism triumphed over Judaism, rending it to pieces. What had become of the divine faithfulness? The first vision (ch. iv.-v. 20) contains an angelic answer to the questions which the seer had painfully pondered, as in the 3d chapter. After being reminded of his inability to comprehend God’s ways, the signs of the end are given. The second vision (v. 21-vi. 34) is similar. The third vision (vi. 35-ix. 25) and the fourth (ix. 27-x. 59) refer to the Messianic future. The fifth, relating to an eagle coming up out of the sea (x. 60-xii. 59), describes the Roman empire, its destination and period of duration; the sixth (ch. xiii), the setting up of Messiah’s kingdom; and the seventh (ch. xiv.), an account of Ezra’s re-writing the holy books. It is very difficult to discover the date of this singular book, and the question is not yet satisfactorily settled, though many critics have investigated it. One thing is pretty clear, that the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place, and that Christianity had passed its incipient stage, exercising some influence even upon Judaism. Original sin, a dying Messiah, a general resurrection, <fcc., point to a Christian origin; so that the passages in which these features appear, and others too, were probably interpolated. Hilgenfeld even thinks that vi. 18-vii. 45 were interpolated by a Christian at the commencement of the 3d century, but his arguments are not cogent, as Langen has shown. As the data for determining the time lie chiefly in the interpretation of the eagle’s wings and heads, the diversity of opinion is,increased. Perhaps the 30th year after the ruin of the city (iii. 1) points to the like time after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. The six wings of the eagle on the right side are the six Julian emperors; the six on the left, are Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vindex, Nymphidius, Piso; and the three heads, the Flavian emperors. Either Titus’s or Domitian’s reign should be fixed upon; probably the latter, about 96 a.d. Hilgenfeld assigns 30 B.C.; Volkmar seems nearer the truth who gives it to 97 a.d., though some of his ingenious interpretations are far fetched. It is impossible to tell whether the author lived at Rome or in Egypt. The few internal evidences bearing on the point favour the latter.

The poetic excellence of this production is much greater than that of Enoch It is, indeed, below the Apocalypse of Daniel; but its merit is considerable. In modern times Messrs Frere and Irving gave it a place beside Daniel and St John,—strangely combining the prophecies of the three into one, as though all were formed upon the same plan, and referred to the same events. Chapters i., ii., and xv., xvi., which need not be separated, seem to have been written by Egyptian Christians; the first two chapters about 201 a.d ; the last two about 263 a.d., according to Gutschmid. Like the Fourth Book of Esdras, these were also written in Greek, but exist only in a Latin translation.

The literature and numerous opinions about the date may be seen in the Prolegomena to Hilgenfeld’s Messias Judoeorum, ; the same work contains the different texts of it. The Latin text alone is presented by Fritzsche in his Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Groece, 1871; and by Volkmar in his Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apocry-phen, 2 Abtheil., 1863. It is in the English Apocrypha, translated, no doubt, from the Vulgate. Luther left it out of his version, and De Wette followed him. The chief writers on the book in recent times are Volkmar and Hilgenfeld; but the list since Whiston and Sender is very copious.

3. The Boole of the Jubilees, or the Little Genesis, ή λeπτη γeveσις, parva Genesis.— This work is apocalyptic only in part, though called the Apocalypse of Moses in the notices of it by George Syncellus and George Cedrenus. In the form of a revelation made to Moses during his stay on Mount Sinai, it professes to be intended for future races, and to contain prophetic admonitions relating to coming times. It is predominantly historical and chronological, beginning with the old histories of the creation. From the commencement of the world till the entrance into Canaan is divided into 50 jubilee years; and every event is arranged according to jubilees, years of weeks, and years. Later Jewish ideas are transferred to earlier times, especially to the patriarchal; and difficult questions connected with the ancient worship are solved. Traditional views and hagadic materials appear with Jewish ritual and exclusiveness. The author was an energetic Palestinian Jew, conversant with the history of his people, and conservative, who meant to confirm them in attachment to the faith, by narrating their past fortunes over again, and keeping them alive to their principles. Amid the multifarious contents it is not easy to trace the precise origin of the book, though it is easy to see that the author was a patriotic Jew, whose object was to keep his countrymen firm in their religion at a time when it was in great peril both from without and within. It has been assigned to an Alexandrian, an Essene, and a Samaritan source, none of which opinions can be maintained. The writer has respect to different sects and parties in Judaism, to the various tendencies existing within the old religion when he wrote; and he endeavours to mediate between them by making concessions in this direction and that,—to conciliate and blend them together, that they may be more united against anti-Jewish influences. Hence Samaritan, Essene, Sadducean, and Pharisean peculiarities are found in the work. There is little doubt that he was an orthodox Jew, who had in view the consolidation of Judaism against heathenism and Christianity—the uniting of all sects and shades of belief in the common faith of Levitical monotheism. It is worthy of remark that the Hebrew text he used agrees with the Samaritan more than the Masoretic, though he himself was not a Samaritan, else he would not have mentioned Zion among the four holy places, to the exclusion of Gerizim. The date is the 1st century of our era; and before the destruction of the temple, as may be inferred from the first chapter. The writer seems to have used the book of Enoch, for he speaks in the fourth chapter of Enoch writing out the signs of heaven according to the order of their months. There are also coincident passages which go to prove the same thing. And there is evidence that the writer of the Testaments of the patriarchs employed our book; though this does not necessarily take the latter’s origin into the 1st century. So, too, the Fourth Book of Esdras was used, as we infer from what is said in relation to Abraham, Esdras iii. 14, &c., and Jubilees xii. The date cannot be fixed nearer than about 50 a.d. The Little Genesis was soon forgotten, and no trace of it appears among the Jews, except perhaps in the title of Bereshit Rabba. Yet its Midrash is of an older type than the other Midrashim; mystic and supernatural in its tendency; its angelology less developed. Jerome refers to it twice by name, and Syncellus thought highly of it. It had been rendered into Greek before the time of Jerome. Dillmann has published the Ethiopie version from two MSS., and translated it into German. The original was Hebrew or Aramaean, as all critics allow, except Frankel, who is refuted by Langen. A Greek version existed early, and was subsequently lost. From it the Ethiopie was made. In 1861, Ceriani published from a palimpsest in the Ambrosian library at Milan, considerable fragments of an old Latin version. This has been reprinted in a revised state by Roensch, together with a Latin version of Dillmann’s text. The work of this meritorious scholar is accompanied with learned notes and exhaustive dissertations; and Dr Sal. Rubin has taken the trouble to translate it into Hebrew, with an introduction and notes, Wien. 1870. See Treuenfels in the Literaturblatt des Orients, 1846; Beer’s Das Buch der Jubiläen und sein Verhaltniss zu den Midraschim, 1856; Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der älteren Jüdischen Interatur, 1853-1855; Frankel in the Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1856; Roensch, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis, u.s.w., 1874.

The Life of Adam, adduced by Syncellus three times with the words ό λεγόμενος Βιος Άδάμ, seems to have been identical with the book of Jubilees, or perhaps a part of it. If the latter, it may have been another recension, enlarged and modified in various respects.

The Book of Adam's Daughters, Liber (qui appellatur) de filiabus Adae sive Leptogeneseos, mentioned in Gelasius’s decree about authentic and apocryphal books, also appears to be the same as the Jubilees.

4. The Assumption or Ascension of Moses, Ανάληψή Mωυσεως, is a prophecy of the future relating to Israel, put into the mouth of Moses, and addressed to Joshua just before the great lawgiver died. Founded upon the book of Deuteronomy, it is brief and unpoetical. But it seems to have been large at first, for according to Nicephorus, it consisted of 1400 stichs, while the Jubilees had only 1100. The work is an appropriate sequel to the Jubilees, but it seems to have proceeded from a different writer, though he lived at the same time. Internal evidence points to its composition after the death of Herod the Great, and before the destruction of Jerusalem. In the third chapter Pompey the Great is clearly depicted; but there is no trace of Jerusalem’s overthrow. The author was a Jew who wrote in Hebrew or Aramaean, and his production was afterwards translated into Greek and Latin. We need not assign him to any other place than Palestine, though Fritzsche conjectures that Rome was his abode. Fragments of the Latin version were first edited from a palimpsest at Milan by Ceriani. The version is by the same hand as that of the Jubilees, for both are found in one MS. and agree in character. The translator may have, therefore, taken the two for the work of the same author. After Ceriani, it has been published by Fritzsche. Hilgenfeld has tried to put it into Greek. The same has been done by Volkmar, Schmidt, and Merx. The ancients believed that Jude borrowed from this work his statement as to the dispute between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. See Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana, tom. i. fascic. 1; Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum, fascic. i. 1866; Messias Judoeorum, 1869; Volkmar, Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, Band 3, 1867; Schmidt and Merx in Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T, 1868; Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Greece, 1871.

5. Apocalypse of Moses, whose proper title is Δι77γj7σις και τroλιτeιa , Aδaμ, άποκαλυφθεΐσα πapa θεoυ Mωυ<n∕ τω θεράποντι αυτόν, διδαχϋεΐσα παρά του αρχαγγέλου Μιχαήλ, contains an account of the formation of Adam and Eve, their fall, Seth’s dialogue with his mother about Adam, and the disposal of the latter’s body beside that of Abel. This work was first published in Greek by...

From the nature of the case, the same word might very well describe such writings further, either in respect of their use or in respect of their origin. In use these writings were, of course, like the doctrines they contained, private and secret; they were not read in general meetings, and did not belong to the publicly recognised books of the system. Only some were admitted to the knowledge of them. That which formed the subject of public reference and instruction was the general doctrines of the system, while these peculiar and more recondite works were at most brought forward on rare occasions. And naturally the same secrecy which hung over their use generally also shrouded their origin. In some cases this might be a real mystery; the books were sometimes of ancient and uncertain date, and their authorship unknown. But of tener the mystery was fictitious, created for the purpose of securing respect for the doctrines inculcated in the writings, which themselves were forgeries of very recent times. Works of this kind were of very common occurrence in the East during the centuries immediately preceding and following the birth of Christ. In order successfully to float them and give them impulse, they were generally launched under some ancient and famous name; and books existed, bearing to be the productions of almost every renowned patriarch or sage from Adam downwards. Even when sent out anonymously, and of an historical rather than a doctrinal character, the scene of their narratives was laid in far back times, and famous personages were introduced acting and speaking, the design being to recommend to the living generation the conduct pursued or the sentiments expressed by the ancient hero or saint.

The term Apocrypha appears in this way to have passed through several stages of meaning, and from expressing a meaning good, or at least neutral, it came at last to have a very bad sense, differing very little from spurious. From the use of the word in ancient writers it does not appear that this progress from a good or indifferent to a bad sense was a matter of time, for the indifferent and bad meanings of the word seem to have existed side by side. Some ecclesiastical writers divide the sacred books into three classes,—recognising first, some that are canonical; second, some that are not canonical, but of inferior value, profitable to be read for moral uses, but not to be founded on for doctrine—to this class the name ecclesiastical was sometimes given; and third, some that are apocryphal. Other writers know of only two classes, embracing both the second and third classes of the former division under the name apocryphal· This difference indicates a milder and a severer use of the term.

Besides those books known distinctively as the Old Testament Apocrypha, a very large number of apocryphal writings were in existence in the early centuries of our era. Some of these are still extant, but many of them have perished, or are known only through MS. translations lying in our great libraries. Our only information regarding many of them is derived from references to them in ecclesiastical writers. These references are sometimes so general that we cannot be sure whether the book referred to was a Jewish or a Christian production. By far the largest number even of those bearing Jewish titles were works by Christian writers. Of the extant writings of this class the most important are fully treated in the article Apocalyptic Literature immediately preceding. In addition to those discussed there may be mentioned the very interesting collection of hymns called the Psalms of Solomon. This small work consists of eighteen poems of varying length, to appearance all by one writer, and existing now only in Greek, though in all probability originally written in a Shemitic dialect. These poems arose in a time of trouble to the Jewish people, most probably in the Greek persecution, and they were designed to sustain the nation under its trials, partly by moral considerations, but chiefly by picturing the certain glories of the Messianic kingdom. The hymns are remarkable no less for the vigour of their poetry than for the fervid theocratic hopes and distinct faith in the resurrection and kindred doctrines which find expression in them. O. F. Fritzsche has appended this little work, along w ith other select Pseudepigraphi of the Old Testament, to his edition of the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Apocrypha of the Old Testament. —The books bearing this name are not contained in the Jewish or Palestinian Canon, t.e., in the Hebrew Bible, but in the Alexandrian Canon, i.e., in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Considerable obscurity hangs over the date and the circumstances of the close of the Hebrew Canon, and the principles which guided the collectors in their selection of books to be embodied. It is most probable that the three divisions referred to in the New Testament, of law, prophets, and writings (Psalms) are of ancient origin; that the first two divisions were closed while prophetic men were still living, that is, considerably anterior to the close of the Persian period, while the third still remained open; and that at whatever time the third was closed, the books added to it were added under the impression that they were books composed before the succession of Prophets had ceased. This is the view expressed by Josephus (Con. Λp., i. 8), and may be considered the general Jewish tradition regarding all books in the Hebrew Canon.

With the Greek or Alexandrian Canon the case was very different. This was, properly speaking, not an ecclesiastical, but a literary collection at first, for the tradition that it was commenced under the auspices of Ptolemy Philadelphus cannot be altogether set aside. At first only the books of Moses and perhaps Joshua were translated, the interest felt in the book being confined to the law. Only gradually and at intervals other books were added, for the translations are not only by different hands, but of very different dates. But it is evident that the collection was formed under the guidance of a principle quite different from that which guided the Palestinian collectors. The feeling in Palestine was that prophecy had ceased (1 Macc. ix. 27, comp. ch. xiv. 41), and no books were held worthy of a place in the Canon which were composed after the succession of prophets had come to an end. In Egypt this theory did not prevail, or rather another theory seems to have prevailed. The doctrine of the Wisdom which appears in Proverbs, ch. i.-viii., received a fuller development in successive ages even in Palestine, and naturally much more in Alexandria, where the speculative Jews came under the influence of Greek thought. This Wisdom is spoken of in a way which at times almost identifies it with the Spirit of God, and at other times almost with the Logos or Word. But at any rate this divine Wisdom is all-pervading, and subject to no interruption in the constancy of its influence. The famous passage, Wisdom of Solomon, ch. vii. 22, f., in which the attributes of wisdom are counted up to the number of twenty-one, speaks of her as “going through all things by reason of her pureness,” and at last says of her, that “in all ages entering into holy souls she maketh them friends of God and prophets.” The particularism of Judaism gave way in Alexandria before the universalistic principles of Western speculation. Prophecy was the product of the Wisdom, and Wisdom was like a subtle element, all-pervasive and incessant in its influence; and consequently a break in the line of prophets, or any distinction between the productions of one age and those of another except in degree, was hardly to be conceived. Thus to the Alexandrian the varied Jewish literature of the post-prophetic times was precious as well as the books that were more ancient, and he carefully gathered the scattered fragments of his national thought, as far as they were known, within the compass of his Canon.

The following books form the Apocrypha of the English Bible. They are given in the order in which they stand there :—1. I. Esdras. 2. II. Esdras. 3. Tobit. 4. Judith. 5. The additions to the Book of Esther. 6. The Wisdom of Solomon. 7. The Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus. 8. Baruch. 9. The Song of the Three Holy Children. 10. The History of Susanna. 11. The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. 12. The Prayer of Manasses, king of Judah. 13. The First Book of Maccabees. 14. The Second Book of Maccabees.

A few statements may be made regarding the general characteristics of the Apocrypha.

1. These books are of very great interest and value as a reflection of the condition of the fragments of the scattered nation, and of the feelings and aspirations which they cherished for a period of several hundred years, and in all the chief countries of the world. Some of the books, such for example as Tobit, belong to the Persian period, and were composed in the East, in Babylon or Persia, and describe the external life as well as the feelings and hopes of the exiles there; others arose in Palestine, such as Ecclesiasticus, and reflect the condition of life and the shades of religious speculation in the home country; while others, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, originated in Egypt, and afford means of estimating the influence of Greek thought upon the native doctrines of the Old Testament; and perhaps in the 2d Esdras there may even be detected traces of Christian influence. The broad undivided stream of Old Testament doctrine and hope breaks at the era of which we are speaking into three channels. The largest, and that which best preserves its primary direction, continues to run in Palestine, diverging to some extent, and widening under the contributions which time and a very chequered experience and reflection made to it; while on each side of this another runs, one on the east and one on the west, directed and partly fed by the ideas of Persia and Greece respectively. To a certain extent the streams reunite further on, and pour their united contributions into the great sea of Christian thought. The central stream is, of course, the most interesting, although to estimate it properly the books of the English Apocrypha are quite insufficient, other works belonging to the same region must also be taken into account, such as the great Book of Enoch, and several more. The two collateral currents are also of extreme interest, although it is far from easy to analyse their waters, and say with assurance what elements belong to the primary Old Testament sources and what are local contributions. Many have discovered traces of Persian ideas even in the canonical books of the Old Testament, particularly in the doctrine of angels in the later books, but the trustworthiness of such discoveries may be very fairly questioned. At the same time, there either is, in the book of Tobit, an advance absolutely on the Old Testament doctrine of angels and demons, or there are traces of a method of interpreting the history in Gen. ch. vi., and a carrying out of the method to further consequences, which are both unknown to the canonical Scriptures (below No. 3). And if in the Alexandrian Wisdom of Solomon a progress directly in advance of what is found in Prov. viii., on the doctrine of Wisdom, may be justly contested, there is certainly what may be called a progress round about, the ideas about Wisdom are expanded and placed in new lights, and made to enter into new relations, in such a way that a general approximation to the New Testament doctrine of the Logos is the result. But in general, as a means of estimating the changing shades of feeling, the rise and fall of hopes, or rather the steady glow of a hope which no hardship could extinguish, the efforts to accommodate faith to circumstances and hold it fast in spite of all that was against it, in a word, as a means of estimating the inner life of a most interesting people in the very crisis of their history, the apocryphal books are invaluable. No more beautiful picture of piety and disinterested benevolence and patriotic warmth could be seen than is presented in the book of Tobit; neither could religious zeal and courageous, even almost reckless, patriotism, easily find higher expression than in the first book of Maccabees, or even in the unhistorical tale of Judith; while the under current of observant thoughtfulness, that contemplates but hardly mixes in life, runs in a deep, if calm and passionless stream in the proverbs of the Son of Sirach. At no time was the nation idle. A people that had conceived such hopes, hopes which at last culminated in Christianity, could not be idle or even anything less than restless and turbulent. There is no form of deed celebrated in the ancient history of the people that they did not try to reproduce, ana no form of literary composition which, in those mournful centuries so full of oppression, they did not strive to imitate, with an inextinguishable life and hopefulness. This last fact, perhaps, might furnish the means of a classification of the books different from that suggested above, and similar to the division usually adopted in the Old Testament Scriptures. (1.) Historical, such as lsi Maccabees, although most that assume the historical form, such as Judith, are simple romances, and can be used only as an index of ideas and feelings, not in proof of facts; while others, like Bel and the Dragon, are completely fabulous. (2.) Prophetical, such as Baruch and 2d Esdras. In these the religious hopes of the people are most fully exhibited; for example, the Messianic expectations. Fully to understand these, however, other works, such as the book of Enoch, not contained in the recognised Apocrypha, have to be included. The prophetic literature almost always assumes the form called apocalyptic. (3.) Philosophical, or books coming under the Hebrew name of Wisdom. Here belong the Son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, to which must be added others not included in the English Apocrypha, e.g., the Psalter of Solomon and 4/Ä Maccabees. 2. It has already been said that the Hebrew or Palestinian Canon was formed on the feeling that, before the close of the Persian period, the succession of prophets ceased. It is too evident that this feeling was a true one. The restoration from exile was little more than an external form with almost no real life within. The new community was feeble in the extreme. It had no productive power of its own. It must fall back entirely upon the past. The most and the best it could do was to conserve the forms and, if possible, the spirit of what was ancient. But the spirit, which should also have been its own, was lacking. Hence everything in the new state was mechanical and rigid. Even the canonical writings of this epoch, such as Chronicles, are mere compilations. And the further off from the ancient times the people removed, the stiffer and more mechanical they grew. No doubt a certain energy was infused into the people at various epochs, particularly in the Maccabean struggles, yet even then there is a certain stiffness and awkwardness both in the acts and writings of the time, as when old age girds itself.’up for deeds to which it is no longer equal. This loss of the prophetic and productive power, and the consciousness of the loss, explains most of the characteristics of the apocryphal literature. For example, there is wanting in it, even where most genial and natural, that original freshness which is so charming in a book like Ruth; and even the proverbial philosophy of the Son of Sirach, instead of bubbling up in living springs, as in Solomon, often appears forced and unwilling in its flow; while in others of the philosophic books there is an elaborate redundancy of language, and a floridness of rhetoric, most unlike the simplicity and terseness of the ancient Wisdom.

Again, the consciousness of the loss of real creative power and complete dependence on the past explains another peculiarity of these books—their pseudonymous character. They do not come forth as the products of their own time, and with the authority of their real authors; they are transferred into the distant past, into the stirring times of living Israelitish history, and their authors are made to be the great historic names of the nation. The Alexandrian philosopher calls his work the Wisdom of Solomon. The author of Judith pitches his romance in Assyrian times. In this way effect is sought, and truths and actions are commended by an authority that is felt no longer to exist.

A defective sense of truth very naturally becomes more serious. To compose a work in what is believed to be the spirit of some ancient sage or hero, and put it forth under his name, may seem a venial wrong. Yet in an uncritical age it often led to very unfortunate results. Neither might it seem greatly amiss to advocate a cause and recommend an action by exhibiting ancient names uttering similar sentiments, or following the same course, and in an age like our own little evil might follow. Yet the next step downward is the direct forgery of documents, such as the Letters of Artaxerxes, which we find in the additions to Esther, or the Epistles at the beginning of 2 Maccabees. The apocryphal books everywhere demonstrate that all true historic consciousness was deserting the people; and though we may gather truth out of the Apocrypha, it is rarely truth directly stated, but reached by our own inferences from the character of the writings and the objects the author plainly enough had in view.

3. One of the most interesting inquiries connected with the Apocrypha is, as to the advance in doctrine and opinion over the Old Testament to be found in it, and its nearer approach to the New Testament. This is a very delicate inquiry, although the existence of a certain advance cannot be denied, and is most certainly to be expected. For the church did not cease to exist in these centuries, and if she was to appearance barren, yet in fact she was maturing into life the seed which she had already conceived.

Parallel to this inquiry, or almost a part of it, runs another, viz., that as to the origin and development of the parties which figure so prominently in the pages of the New Testament. All these parties date in their germs from the times of the Restoration, or those not greatly posterior, and may roughly be divided into two— those who rigidly adhered to their native Judaism, of whom the Pharisees may be considered the chief representatives; and those who ethnicised, either attaching themselves exclusively to Gentile culture, or combining elements of foreign thought and worship with their native faith, the most prominent sect in this class being the Sadducees. We may expect to come in the Apocrypha upon many traces of such diverging opinions. A specimen here and there will illustrate the position of things in these books.

The want of real life at the time of the Restoration, and the consequent mechanical adherence to ancient forms, was the direct parent of the Pharisaic morality so well known. Already this appears in Tobit. The Pharisee, who went up to the temple to pray, might almost have gathered the elements of his prayer from this book. " Prayer is good with fasting, and alms, and righteousness For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin” (ch. xii. 8, comp. ch. xiv. 11, and Judith viii. 6, xi. 11, ff.} On the other hand, traces of quite a different morality, allied to asceticism, appear elsewhere, as in the statement of Wisdom ix. 15, regarding the body: “For the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things.” On the general doctrine of God no advance perhaps was possible. Very...

They possess no authority whatever, either external or internal, to procure their admission into the sacred canon. None of them are extant in Hebrew; all of them are in the Greek language, except the fourth book of Esdras, which is only extant in Latin. They were written for the most part by Alexandrian Jews, subsequently to the cessation of the prophetic spirit, though before the promulgation of the Gospel. Not one of the writers in direct terms advances a claim to inspiration; nor were they ever received into the sacred canon by the Jewish church, and therefore they were not sanctioned by our Saviour. No part of the apocrypha is quoted, or even alluded to, by him or by any of his Apostles; and both Philo and Josephus, who flourished in the first century of the Christian æra, are totally silent concerning them.

The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerom, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognised by the council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the catholic church; so that as Bishop Burnet well observes, we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter. To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century; when, as Jerom informs us, they were read “for example of life, and instruction of planners; but were not applied to establish any doctrine.” And contemporary writers state, that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As a proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates, that when the book of Wisdom and other writings of the same class were publicly read in the church, they were given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read them in a lower place than those which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the western church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament until the last council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (except the Prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the Prophets.