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.