« Apocatastasis Apocrisiarius Apollinaris, Claudius »

Apocrisiarius

APOCRISIARIUS, ap"o-cris"i-ê´ri-Us: A general designation in early times for ecclesiastical ambassadors, derived from the Greek apokrinesthai “to answer” (hence the Latin term responsales for the same class). The name is found applied to the legates sent by the pope to guard his metropolitan rights in Sicily until the Mohammedan invasion, and to episcopal representatives in Rome. The office assumed its most formal and important character in the Eastern Church, where the patriarchs were represented at the imperial court by apocrisiarii, and bishops maintained similar diplomatic agents in the residences of the patriarchs. The popes also, at least from Leo the Great to the time of the iconoclastic controversy, regularly had apocrisiarii in Constantinople; they were sometimes called also diaconi, because usually chosen from the order of deacons. The officials described here have nothing but the name in common with the apocrisiarius of the Frankish ecclesiastical system (see Archicapellanus).

(Friedberg.)

APOCRYPHA.

Writings Withheld from Public Use (§ 1).

Writings of Uncertain Origin (§ 2).

Use of the Term by Protestants (§ 3).

A. Old Testament Apocrypha.

I. Position in the Canon.

Apocrypha in the Greek Canon (§ 1).

Used in Some New Testament Writings (§ 2).

By the Church Fathers (§ 3).

The Beginning of Exclusion (§ 4).

Accepted by the Roman Catholic Church (§ 5).

Rejected by Protestants (§ 6).

II. Manuscripts of the Greek Text.

III. Ancient Versions.

1. Latin.

The Old Latin and Jerome’s Versions (§ 1).

2. Syriac.

The Peshito and Hexaplar Syriac Versions (§ 2).

IV. Origin and Contents of the Individual Writings.

1. The Apocryphal Ezra.

2. Additions to Esther.

3. Additions to Daniel.

(a) The Song of the Three Children.

(b) The History of Susanna.

(c) Bel and the Dragon.

4. The Prayer of Manasses.

5. Baruch.

6. The Epistle of Jeremiah.

7. Tobit.

8. Judith.

9. I Maccabees.

10. II Maccabees.

11. III Maccabees.

12. Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).

13. The Wisdom of Solomon.

B. New Testament Apocrypha.

I. Apocryphal Gospels.

1. The Protevangelium of James.

2. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

3. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary.

4. The History of Joseph the Carpenter.

5. The Gospel of Thomas.

6. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy.

7. The Gospel of Nicodemus—Writings Connected with the Name of Pilate and Relating to the Trial and Death of Jesus.

8-37. Apocryphal Gospels Preserved only in Fragments or Known only by Name.

II. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.

III. Apocryphal Epistles.

IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses.

1. Writings Withheld from Public Use.

Apocrypha is a Greek word meaning “hidden,” which, when applied to writings, may signify either those which are kept in concealment or those the origin of which is unknown. The word is used in both senses in patristic literature. When the followers of Prodicus, according to Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I. xv. 69), boasted of possessing the “apocryphal books” of Zoroaster, they called these works “apocryphal” not because they did not know their origin (since they ascribed them to 213 Zoroaster), but because they regarded the books as not to be made public. The reason in this case for keeping the writings concealed was the special value attached to them. But writings may also be withdrawn from general use because they are inferior. With this thought in mind Origen and Didymus of Alexandria make a distinction between the “common and widely circulated books” (Gk. koina kai dedēmeumena or dedēmosieumena biblia) and the apocryphal books of Scripture (Origen on Matt. xiii, 57, ANF, ix, 425; Didymus of Alexandria on Acts viii, 39, MPG, xxxix, 1669). In like manner Eusebius calls the canonical books which were used in the churches dedēmosieumena (Hist. eccl., III, iii, 6, and elsewhere). Similarly Jerome (Epist., xcvi) explains the Greek apokryphos by the Latin absconditus. (For further illustration cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, i, Leipsic, 1888, 126 sqq.)

The Christian usage is clearly derived from a Jewish custom. The Jews, because they hesitated actually to destroy copies of sacred writings, were in the habit of either depositing in a secret place (genizah) or of burying such as had become defective or were no longer fit for public use. The new-Hebrew word for this “concealing” is ganaz, “to save, hoard.” Writings which were withdrawn from public use because of questionable contents were treated in the same way; thus King Hezekiah is said to have “stored up” the “Book of Remedies” because it prejudiced faith and trust in God (Pesahim iv, 9). Hence ganaz came to mean “to declare uncanonical” (Shabbat 30b; cf. Fürst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Leipsic, 1868, pp. 91-93). Since the Christian phraseology undoubtedly followed the Jewish, it can not be questioned that “apocryphal” in ecclesiastical usage according to its original and proper signification means nothing else than “excluded from public use in the Church."

2. Writings of Uncertain Origin.

But “apocryphal” in both Greek and Latin may be applied also to writings the origin of which is unknown, and this meaning led to that of “forged, spurious.” In this sense Augustine speaks of “the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal because their origin, being obscure, was unknown to the fathers” (De civitate dei, XV, xxiii, 4, NPNF, 1st ser. ii, 305); and again he says the apocryphal books “are so called, not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence have only some obscure presumption to rest upon” (Contra Faustum, xi, 2, NPNF, 1st ser. iv, 178). In many cases it can not be decided which meaning was intended (cf. Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, xxii, 8; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., III, iv, 29; Apostolic Constitutions, vi, 16). It seems, however, that the original meaning, so sharply and consistently expressed in Origen, was not that generally given to the word before his time. At any rate, it is questionable whether it was clearly present to the mind of Irenæus and Tertullian in the following passages. The former, speaking of the Marcosians, says: “They adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged” (Hær., I, xx, 1, ANF, i, 344); and Tertullian says: “I would yield my ground to you, if the scripture of the Shepherd [of Hermas] . . . had deserved to find a place in the divine canon; if it had not been habitually judged by every council of churches . . . among apocryphal and false writings” (De pudicitia, x, ANF, iv, 85). After the word was once introduced, its ambiguity easily led to a notion differing from the original meaning. In the case of Augustine this is certain. Jerome, too, seems to use the word in the sense of “obscure in origin” when he says that all apocryphal writings “are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed” (Epist., cvii, 12, NPNF, 2d ser. xi, 194) The two senses—"exclusion from public use in the Church” and “obscure in origin"—are often combined in the same passage. The meaning became finally so generalized that the word signifies simply what is wrong and bad, as in the Latin adaptation of Origen’s “Preface to the Song of Solomon” at the end: “Those writings which are called apocryphal (which contain much that is corrupt and contrary to the true faith) should not be given place or admitted to authority;"—the words in parentheses appear to be added by the Latin editor. (For further information cf. C. A. Credner, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, Berlin, 1860, pp. 110 sqq.; A. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Halle, 1863, pp. 6 sqq.; H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 145 sqq.; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I, i, Leipsic, 1888, pp. 123 sqq.)

3. Use of the Term by Protestants.

In the ancient Church and in the Middle Ages the term “apocryphal” was almost never applied, as in the Protestant Church, to those portions of the Greek and Latin Bibles which were foreign to the Hebrew canon. Indeed, it could not be so applied, for those books have always been a part of the Greek and Latin Bibles. Jerome alone once made a statement (in the Prologus galeatus) implying that these writings do indeed fall into the category of apocrypha. During the Middle Ages there were at the most a very few isolated voices which spoke to that effect (Hugo of St. Cher; cf. de Wette-Schrader, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin, 1869, p. 66). It was in the Protestant Church that this nomenclature first became customary. The earliest to introduce it, appealing expressly to Jerome, was Carlstadt in his De canonicis scripturis libellus (Wittenberg, 1520; reprinted in Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, Halle 1847, pp. 291 sqq.). He there expressly stated that by “apocryphal” he understood “non-canonical"; and in this sense the Protestant Church has always understood the word. The first edition of the Bible in which the writings in question were expressly called apocryphal was that of Frankfort, 1534, which was followed in the same year by Luther’s first edition (cf. G. W. 214 Panzer, Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung, Nuremberg, 1783, pp. 294 sqq.).

A. Old Testament Apocrypha:

Those portions of the Greek and Latin Old Testaments which are not found in the Hebrew Canon, the term “apocrypha” being used in this article with the meaning given to it by the Protestant Church (see § 3, above).

I. Position in the Canon:

1. Apocrypha in the Greek Canon.

The Hebrew canon of the Bible in the first century of the Christian era comprised about the same books as at present, though the canonicity of the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs was disputed (Mishnah, Eduyot, v, 3; Yadayim, iii, 5; J. Fürst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Ueberlieferungen in Talmud and Midrasch, Leipsic, 1868; see Canon of Scripture, I). But it was otherwise with the Hellenistic Jews. As far as the extent of the Greek canon of the Bible can be traced, it included a number of writings which are wanting in the Hebrew canon. No clear proofs of this from pre-Christian times exist; but the fact that Christians using the Greek Bible received these other writings also makes it highly probable that these belonged to the canon of the Hellenistic Jews. While it may be conceded to the opponents of this view that Hellenistic Jews had no strict conception of a canon, it can not be denied that certain writings were received into the Greek Bible-collection which were foreign to the Hebrew canon (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, pp. 311 sqq.; Bleek, TSK, 1853, pp. 323 sqq.). The fact that Philo did not quote these other writings proves nothing, since Philo was interested mainly in the Pentateuch.

2. Used in Some New Testament Writings.

In the New Testament there are no express references to the so-called Apocrypha, a fact the more remarkable since most of the New Testament authors took their quotations from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. But to understand this rightly, one must not forget that a number of canonical writings of the Old Testament are never cited in the New Testament; others only seldom. The Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Psalms are frequently quoted; the historical books not so often; while the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah are never cited. The lack of express citations can therefore not be emphasized; and on the other hand, it can not be denied that at least in some writings of the New Testament the Apocrypha are used. This applies particularly to the Epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. That Ecclesiasticus was known to the author of the Epistle of James can not be denied in the face of the many parallels (cf. Werner in TQ, 1872, pp. 265 sqq.). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doubtless refers in xi, 34 sqq. to the story of the Maccabees (cf. II Macc. vi, 18-vii, 42). Striking agreements with the Wisdom of Solomon are also found (thus Heb. i, 3 = Wisdom vii, 26; Heb. iv, 12-13 = Wisdom vii, 22-24); and there can be no doubt that Paul made use of this book (cf. in general Bleek, TSK, 1853, pp. 325 sqq., especially 337-349).

3. By the Church Fathers.

Among the Church Fathers the Apocrypha were in common use from the earliest times. Clement of Rome puts “the blessed” Judith beside Esther as an example of female heroism (Epist., Iv, ANF, ix, 245). Barnabas (xix, 9) goes back to Ecclus. iv, 31 when he quotes “Be not ready to stretch forth thy hands to take whilst thou withdrawest them from giving.” Justin Martyr (Apol., i, 46, ANF, i, 178) refers to the additions to Daniel. That none of these passages has the form of a true Scripture citation may be viewed as accidental and may be explained from the small extent of this oldest literature. But from the time of Athenagoras true citations can be proved. Athenagoras (“Plea for the Christians,” i, 9, ANF, ii, 133) quotes among the “voices of the prophets,” as divinely inspired, Baruch iii, 25 upon an equality with Isa. xliv, 6; Irenæus (Hær., IV, xxvi, 3, ANF, i, 497) cites as the words of “Daniel the Prophet” the history of Susanna, and (Hær., V, xxxv, 1, ANF, i, 565) the Book of Baruch as the work of Jeremiah; Tertullian quotes the history of Susanna (De corona, iv, ANF, iii, 95), Bel and the Dragon (De idololatria, xviii, ANF, iii, 72), and the Wisdom of Solomon (Adversus Valentinos, ii, ANF, iii, 504) as canonical Scripture. Clement of Alexandria quotes Ecclesiasticus very often with the formula “Scripture,” “Holy Scripture,” “Wisdom says,” and the like, and not so frequently, but with the same formulas, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Tobit. Abundant examples of the same practise can be cited from Hippolytus, Cyprian, and others.

In view of these facts it may be asserted that the Church of the first centuries made no essential difference between the writings of the Hebrew canon and the so-called Apocrypha. Only in an isolated way and evidently as the result of learned inquiry does an express limitation of the canon to the extent of the Hebrew Bible appear; for example, Melito of Sardis, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xxvi, 14), mentions only the books of the Hebrew canon as canonical, but he gives this list expressly as the result of learned inquiry in Palestine. When Origen gives a list which comprises only the Hebrew canon (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi, 25), he gives it as the canon of the Hebrews, and his own view can not be deduced from the passage given by Eusebius. On the other hand, from Origen’s correspondence with Julius Africanus it is deducible that he was by no means in favor of excluding those parts which were wanting in the Hebrew canon, because he defends the Greek additions to Daniel, and he likewise cites some Apocryphal writings (Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Baruch) as “Scriptural authority,” “the Holy Word,” “Scripture,” etc. (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, p. 53). The critique which Julius Africanus wrote on the Greek text of the Book of Daniel, trying to remove the portions not found in the Hebrew-Aramaic text (Epist. ad Origenem), evidently remained an isolated phenomenon.

4. The Beginning of Exclusion.

The learned disquisitions of men like Origen resulted, however, in this, that stricter regard was 215 paid to the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek canon. Wherever the purpose was to fix theoretically the range of the canon, recourse was had to the Hebrew canon as to something settled over against the fluctuations of the Greek canon. Thus there are a number of lists of the canonical books from the fourth century which confine themselves to the Hebrew canon and either do not mention the other writings or assign to them a lower value. Athanasius is most instructive in this respect. In his Epistola festalis, xxxix (NPNF, 2d ser. iv, 552), after mentioning the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments, he adds Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd of Hermas as “not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us and wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” The specified writings were to be read in the Church, and are expressly differentiated by Athanasius from the “Apocrypha"; they are not mentioned at all in the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and Amphilochius (cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte, II, i, 172-180, 212-219). The usage of Epiphanius varies: in one place he gives only the Hebrew canon; in another he mentions also Tobit and Judith as in the canon, while Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon seem to him “doubtful.” That he expresses only his own opinion is proved by still a third passage (Hær., lxxvi), where after the canonical writings, which are not named individually, he mentions Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus as “Holy Scripture.” His wavering was due to the fact that, on the one hand, he used the canon of the Jews as the norm, while, on the other hand, he was unwilling to give up his Greek Bible (cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte, II, i, 219-226). The only one who in the ancient Church opposed the Apocrypha was Jerome; and this was no doubt due to his Hebrew studies and his zeal for the “body of truth in the Hebrew.” The principal passage is in the Prologus galeatus (NPNF, 2d ser. vi, 489), in which he says that the books not on the list he gives must be reckoned among the Apocrypha.

All these declarations, more or less unfavorable to the Apocrypha, lose much of their importance from the fact that the men who excluded the Apocrypha from the canon use them in an impartial manner as though canonical; so Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, and even Jerome, who in spite of his theory is not afraid to quote Ecclesiasticus as “Sacred Scripture.” Roman theologians have rightly laid great stress upon this fact; for it proves that, notwithstanding opposite theories, ecclesiastical practise on the whole was to use the Apocryphal like the canonical writings. Moreover, the West decided in their favor. Augustine (De doctrina Christiana, ii, 8) counted the Apocrypha as canonical, and the same was the case with the synods at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), held under his influence (cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte, II, i, 246-259). This position was prevalent down to the time of the Reformation, though in the Middle Ages there were not lacking voices which sided with Jerome (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, pp. 64 sqq.). In the Greek Church of the Middle Ages the Apocrypha were as a rule included in the canon.

5. Accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

In the Church of Rome the question concerning the Apocrypha was definitively settled by the Council of Trent, which in its fourth session fixed the extent of the canon in such a manner that it included the Apocrypha. Hence the official edition of the Vulgate (that of 1592) includes the Apocrypha with the other writings, and in the following order: Nehemiah (numbered as II Ezra) is followed by Tobit, Judith, Esther (with the additions), Job. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel with the additions, the Twelve Minor Prophets, I and II Maccabees. As an appendix (in smaller type and with the explicit statement that they stand “outside the series of canonical books”), the Old Testament is followed by the Prayer of Manasses, III and IV Ezra. From this official canon of the Church of Rome the manuscripts and editions of the Greek Bible differ mainly in this, that in them III Ezra (which, however, is here always numbered as I Ezra) is put on a par with the other writings, IV Ezra (as a rule also the Prayer of Manasses) is wanting, III Maccabees being substituted for it; some few manuscripts and editions contain also IV Maccabees. The arrangement is generally this: I Ezra stands before the canonical Ezra; Judith and Tobit stand together with Esther; Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus with the Solomonic writings; Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah. The position of the books of the Maccabees is the most uncertain; in the (printed) editions they generally stand at the end of the Old Testament.

6. Rejected by Protestants.

In the Protestant Church, Carlstadt (De canonicis scripturis, Wittenberg, 1520) was the first to pay special attention to the theory of the canon. He sided with Jerome in designating the writings in question as “apocrypha,” that is, as non-canonical writings (cf. Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 364). Yet he distinguished within them two classes. On Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, I and II Maccabees, he remarked: “These are apocrypha, i.e., outside of the Hebrew canon, nevertheless they are holy writings.” The others, however, were for him “plainly apocrypha, deservedly exposed to the strictures of the censor (Credner, 389).” Though this discrimination has found no favor, Carlstadt’s position is on the whole that of the Protestant Church. In the first complete original edition of Luther’s translation (1534) the Apocrypha formed a supplement to the Old Testament with the heading “Apocrypha; that is, books which, although not estimated equal to the Holy Scriptures, are yet useful and good to read.” As to the number of received writings, Luther’s Bible agreed with the Vulgate, with the modification, however, that of the three books 216 found in the appendix to the Vulgate the Prayer of Manasses was received, and both books of Ezra were excluded. In the Reformed Church the apocryphal books have received the same treatment as in the Lutheran, except that usually a stricter sentence has been passed upon them. In modern times, opposition has twice been raised against them, each time in England (1825 and 1850); and the result has been a substantial augmentation of information about them.

II. Manuscripts of the Greek Text:

As the Apocrypha form an integral part of the Greek Old Testament, they are included in the Septuagint manuscripts, of which the most important are: (1) the Codex Vaticanus, in which the books of Maccabees do not appear; (2) the Codex Sinaiticus, containing Esther, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus; (3) the Codex Alexandrinus, containing all the Apocrypha. (For particulars cf. the prolegomena to O. F. Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Grœce, Leipsic, 1871. On the manuscripts of the Septuagint in general cf. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 122-170; see also Bible Text, I, 4, § 2.)

III. Ancient Versions:

Mention is made here of only the Latin and Syriac because they are the most important in point of age and circulation.

1. Latin:

1. The Old Latin and Jerome’s Versions.

Various Old Latin texts of most Apocrypha exist, the interrelations of which have not yet been fully investigated (cf. Schürer, Geschichte, vol. iii). These must be distinguished from Jerome’s translation, and an estimate of the amount of the Old Latin that has been preserved can be obtained only by inference from what is known concerning Jerome’s labors. He undertook a twofold translation of the Old Testament. At first he was satisfied with revising the Old Latin translation on the basis of the Septuagint; after that he translated the Old Testament anew from the original text (cf. Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, pp. 153 sqq.; see Bible Versions, A, II, 2), necessarily omitting the Apocrypha, because they were not in the original text. Jerome says expressly concerning some that he passes them by. In response to special requests he worked over two of the apocryphal books, Tobit and Judith, but he performed the work hastily and reluctantly and evidently not in connection with his great Bible version (cf. the preface to both books, Opera, ed. Vallarsi, 11 vols., Verona, 1734-42 x, 1, sqq., 21 sqq.). The Vulgate texts of the additions to Esther and Daniel are also Jerome’s work. He received these into his translation from the original text, but marked them with the obelus (cf. his remarks on Esther, Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ix, 1581). The translation of the additions to Esther is so free that in some passages it gives merely the general sense. The additions to Daniel are translated with greater fidelity, but from the text of Theodotion, as noted by Jerome himself. The version of these four books passed into the Vulgate. The Vulgate contains also the books of Ezra (put into the appendix since the Council of Trent), Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah, I and II Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom. Since Jerome did not translate these, the Vulgate text is to be regarded as essentially the same as that of the Old Latin. The question is only whether some of these texts have not undergone correction at the hand of Jerome. It is to be regretted that information is very meager as to the extent of Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin which was originally made from the Septuagint. But on two Apocrypha, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, there is a valuable notice in the extant “Preface to the Edition of the Books of Solomon according to the LXX” (Vallarsi, x, 436), from which it is learned that in Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon, Jerome “saved the pen,” i.e., he did not emend them since he “desired to correct only the canonical writings.” As by “canonical writings” here he refers only to the Solomonic literature, it remains a possibility that he nevertheless emended the non-Solomonic Apocrypha, Ezra, Baruch, I and II Maccabees. And it is at any rate worthy of notice that these four books are extant in the Latin in double texts, whereas Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are extant only in the text of the Vulgate. The presumption is obvious: that one of each of these four double texts embodies the revision of Jerome. (The chief collection of Old Latin texts is P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum latine versiones antiquœ, 3 vols., Paris, 1751; cf. also S. Berger, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, Paris, 1893, xxxiv, 2, pp. 141-152; idem, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge, Paris, 1893; Thielmann, Bericht über das gesammelte handschriftliche Material zu einer kritischen Ausgabe der lateinischen Ueber-setzungen des Alten Testaments, in Sitzungsberichte der Münchener Akademie, hist. Klasse, 1899, vol. ii, pp. 205-243.)

2. Syriac:

2. The Peshito and Hexaplar Syriac Versions.

Here also distinction must be made between the common Syriac (Peshito) and the Hexaplar Syriac version. The former was printed by Walton in the London Polyglot, and, from examination of six manuscripts in the British Museum, by P. de Lagarde (Libri Veteris Testamenti apocrypha Syriace, Leipsic, 1861). The most important manuscript is the Codex Ambrosianus B. 21 Inf. of the sixth century, which contains the whole of the Old Testament and the following Apocrypha: Wisdom, Epistle of Jeremiah, I and II Epistles of Baruch, additions to Daniel, Judith, Ecelesiasticus, Apocalypse of Baruch, IV Ezra, I–V Maccabees (V Maccabees=Josephus, War, vi). Only Ezra and Tobit are wanting. The character of this Syriac translation is different in the different books, some being quite literal and faithful, others free and inaccurate. The Hexaplar Syriac is the Syriac translation prepared after the text of Origen’s Hexapla, and is for the most part extant in manuscripts at Milan, Paris, and London. The most important manuscript is the Codex Ambrosianus C. 313 Inf. It contains Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, and the additions to Daniel. To the Hexaplar translation belongs 217 also the Syriac text of Tobit i-xii. The rest of the book is from the Peshito.

IV. Origin and Contents of the Individual Writings.

1. The Apocryphal Ezra

(I Esdras; for II Esdras see Pseudepigrapha, Old Testament, II, 7): In the Greek Bibles this book is called II Ezra; in the Latin, III Ezra (Nehemiah = II Ezra). The whole is a worthless compilation, the main part of which is identical with the canonical Ezra. The mutual relations may be seen from the following:

Chap. i = II Chron. xxxv-xxxvi: The restoration of the temple worship under Josiah (639-609 b.c.), and the history of Josiah’s successors till the destruction of the Temple (588). Chap. ii, 1-14 = Ezra i: Cyrus in the first year of his reign (537 b.c.) allows the exiles to return, and restores to them the vessels of the Temple. Chap. ii, 15-25= Ezra iv, 7-24: In consequence of an accusation against the Jews, Artaxerxes (465-425 b.c.) forbids the continuation of the building of the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. Chap. iii-v, 6, independent: Zerubbabel obtains the favor of Darius (521-485 b.c.), and secures permission to lead the exiles back. Chap. v, 7-70 = Ezra ii, 1-iv, 5: List of those who returned with Zerubbabel, the activities of Zerubbabel, and the interruption of the building of the Temple during the time of Cyrus (536-529 b.c.) and till the second year of Darius (520 b.c.). Chap. vi-vii = Ezra v-vi: Resumption and completion of the building of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius (516 b.c.). Chap. viii-ix, 36 Ezra vii-x: Ezra returns with a caravan of exiles in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 b.c.); the beginning of Ezra’ s activities. Chap. ix, 37-55 = Neh. vii, 73-viii, 13: Ezra proclaims the Law.

The apocryphal differs from the canonical Ezra in the following four points: (1) The passage iv, 7-24 of the canonical Ezra is placed first; (2) the passage iii-v, 6 of the apocryphal Ezra is inserted from an unknown source; (3) II Chron. xxxv-xxxvi serves as a preface; (4) Neh. vii, 73-viii, 13 is added at the end. In the canonical Ezra, iv, 6-23 is in the wrong place; it belongs to a later period and treats not of the interruption of the building of the Temple but of the interruption of the building of the walls. The redactor of the apocryphal Ezra has indeed taken it out of its wrong surroundings, but he has increased the confusion by locating the passage wrongly and by adding as supplement the account of the interruption of work on the Temple. Not satisfied with this he inserted also the piece iii-v, 6, which transfers the action into the time of Darius, whereas in v, 7-70 events in the reign of Cyrus are discussed. Thus the history goes backward; first (ii, 15-25) Artaxerxes, then (iii-v, 6) Darius, finally (v, 7-70) Cyrus. And in the last passage it is told very ingenuously how Zerubbabel had already returned with the exiles under Cyrus (cf. v, 8, 67-70), after the statement has been made expressly that Zerubbabel through a special favor of Darius obtained permission to return. The opinion of Howorth that the apocryphal Ezra is more original than the canonical is a reversal of the actual state of the case, as is sufficiently shown by Kosters. Concerning the sources used by the compiler two facts appear: (a) The canonical Ezra which he used was not that of the Septuagint, but was the Hebrew-Aramaic original (cf. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, Tübingen, 1893, pp. 23-29); (b) the portion iii-v, 6 he certainly found ready to hand, since it stands in the directest opposition to the rest of the narrative. It seems to be from a Greek original, not a translation from the Hebrew. The purpose of the entire compilation was correctly stated by Bertholdt (Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, 6 vols., Erlangen, 1812-19, iii, 1011) in the following words: “He intended to compile from older works a history of the Temple from the last epoch of the legal worship to its rebuilding and of the reestablishment of the prescribed divine service.” The compiler evidently purposed to quote further from Nehemiah; for the abrupt close can not possibly have been intended. As to the date of compilation all that can be said is that the book was used by Josephus (Ant., xi, 1-5).

2. Additions to Esther

(The Rest of Esther): The Book of Esther narrates how Esther, the foster-daughter of a Jew named Mordecai at the court of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in Shushan, becomes the wife of the king; how Haman, the prime minister who intended to destroy Mordecai and all Jews, is himself brought to the gallows; and how by her intercession Esther finally induces the king to revoke the edict issued under Haman’s influence, and thus saves her people. Into this narrative the following pieces are inserted in the Greek Bible: (a) Before i, 1, Mordecai’s dream of the miraculous deliverance of his people; (b) after iii, 13, the text of the first edict of Artaxerxes (thus the king is named in this section) which decrees the extermination of the Jews; (c) after iv, 17, the text of the prayers of Mordecai and Esther for the salvation of their people; (d) in place of v, 1-2, the reception of Esther by the king; (e) in place of viii, 13, the text of the second edict of Artaxerxes, which recalls the first; (f) after x, 3, Mordecai perceives the significance of his dream. It is difficult to decide whether these pieces were interpolated by the translator of the Septuagint version of Esther or by a later hand. There is no reason for assuming for them a Hebrew original. It is true that Hebrew and Aramaic texts exist, but they are late in origin, and most likely were made directly or indirectly from the Greek, as were other Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Apocrypha. For these additions Josephus is the oldest witness (Ant., VI, vi, 6 sqq.), since the annotation to Esther according to which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought the book (to Egypt) in the fourth year of the reign of King Ptolemy and Cleopatra, refers to the book as a whole and can not be used as testimony for the antiquity of the interpolated passages. Moreover, this testimony is very indecisive, since there were no less than four Ptolemies, each of whom had a wife named Cleopatra. In this book, especially interesting is the text-recension which is extant in Codices 19, 93A, 108B, the latter two containing both texts, the common and the revised. The revision of the common text, which on the whole characterizes the readings of these manuscripts, is more radical in Esther than is usual, on which account Fritzsche published both texts side by side in his edition of 1848 as well as in his collection of the Apocrypha. Lagarde did the same in his edition of the Septuagint (i, 1883).

3. Additions to Daniel:

(a) The Song of the Three Children:

In the third chapter of Daniel it 218 is told how the three children Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (or, as their Hebrew names are given in i, 7, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah), refusing to fall down before the image of the king, were punished by being thrown into the furnace, but were miraculously saved. In the Greek text of Daniel an insertion is made after iii, 23, in which it is told that Azariah when in the furnace prayed to God to be saved, and when his prayer was heard, that the three sang a song of praise, the text of the prayer as well as of the song being given.

(b) The History of Susanna:

In the Greek text this passage generally stands at the beginning of Daniel, and Daniel is introduced as still a boy. Susanna, the wife of a prominent Jew of Babylon, named Joacim, is wrongly accused of adultery, and condemned to death, but is saved by the young Daniel’s wisdom and prophetic gift.

(c) Bel and the Dragon:

Daniel proves to the king of Babylon (whom Theodotion calls Cyrus) that the god Bel neither eats nor drinks the offerings put before him. The destruction of a dragon, which is an object of worship, Daniel brings about by feeding it with indigestible cakes. Being cast into the lion’s den at the instigation of the enraged populace, Daniel is not touched by the lion, and is miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk.

Of these three insertions the first only is a proper supplement to the canonical book of Daniel. The other two are independent and probably originated independently. There is no certain reason for assuming that either of the three insertions was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The history of Susanna is certainly a Greek original, as was inferred by Julius Africanus and Porphyry from plays on words possible only in Greek (cf. Bertholdt, Einleitung, iv, 1575 sqq.; a thorough but nevertheless abortive effort to put aside the force of these plays was made by Wiederholt in TQ, 1869, pp. 290-321). Of the Song of the Three Children in the furnace and the story of the dragon, Gaster published an Aramaic text from a Jewish chronicle of the Middle Ages, which he regards as the original (Gaster, The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion’s Additions to the Book of Daniel, in PSBA, xvi, 1894, pp. 280-290, 312-317; xvii, 1895, pp. 75-94). But the author of the chronicle says that he gives the insertions, “which Thodos found; and this is the section which was inserted into his text by Thodos, the wise man, who translated in the days of Commodus, King of the Romans” (PSBA, xvi, 283, 312). Since Symmachus and Aquila are also mentioned as Bible translators, Thodos is no doubt Theodotion, as Gaster also states. The chronicler himself thus declares that the insertions are later than Theodotion. Still less originality can be claimed by another Aramaic (Syriac) reproduction of the story of the dragon, which Raymundus Martini quoted in his Pugio fidei, and which was published by Neubauer (The Book of Tobit, London, 1878, pp. xci-xcii, 39-43); the same can also be said of the Hebrew recension of the History of Susanna in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash (6 vols., Vienna, 1877, vi, 126-128). On account of the linguistic agreement of the insertions with the translation of the rest of the book, Fritzsche is led to the assumption that they are united with the book by the translator [of the Septuagint], and were recast by him (Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 114). This is improbable if the Greek origin of the insertions is maintained. Before the Daniel legend could produce new formations in the Greek language, a Greek book of Daniel had to exist. On the History of Susanna there is an interesting correspondence between Julius Africanus and Origen, in which the former denies the genuineness of the story and the latter defends it (Julii Africani de historia Susannœ epistola ad Origenem et Origenis ad illum responsio, ed. J. R. Wetstenius, Basel, 1674, Eng. transl., ANF, iv, 385-392). The text of the Septuagint of the Book of Daniel, together with its additions, was early displaced from ecclesiastical use by the version of Theodotion; consequently all manuscripts and editions of the Septuagint contain Theodotion’s version of Daniel. The text of the Septuagint is extant in only one manuscript, which is in the library of Prince Chigi at Rome (Codex Chisianus, no. 88 in Holmes’s Vetus Testamentum; Tischendorf dates it in the eleventh century), and was first edited by Simon de Magistris (Daniel secundum LXX ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus e singulari Chisiano codice, Rome, 1772). A correct reprint of the Codex Chisianus was first published by Cozza (Sacrorum bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta Grœca et Latina, part iii, Rome, 1877), and after him by Swete (The Old Testament in Greek, iii, Cambridge, 1894). Wherever Theodotion could not revise after a Hebrew original, his text in the additions is nothing but a revision of the Septuagint. The text of the Septuagint is the basis of the Hexaplar-Syriac version.

4. The Prayer of Manasses:

After King Manasseh had been taken to Babylon by the Assyrians, and while in captivity, he repented and besought God to be delivered; God heard his prayer and brought him back again to Jerusalem (II Chron. xxxiii, 11-13). According to II Chron. xxxiii, 18-19, this prayer was written in the “Book of the Kings of Israel” and in the “History of Hozai” and “among the sayings of the seers.” This reference suggested the composition of a prayer which should correspond to the situation. It is found in some manuscripts of the Septuagint (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus) among the hymns given at the head of the Psalms; and is also quoted in full in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii, 22. The latter furnishes the earliest trace of the existence of the prayer; it may be, as Nestle supposes, that it was transferred from this passage into the manuscripts of the Septuagint. It is nowhere found in the text of Chronicles. The Latin translation in the Vulgate (since the Council of Trent put into the appendix) is entirely different from the Old Latin, and is of very late origin.

5. Baruch:

Under the name of Baruch, the faithful friend and companion of the prophet Jeremiah, whose prophecies he wrote down (Jer. xxxvi, 4, 17 sqq., 27, 32; xlv, 1) and with whom he shared the involuntary abode in Egypt (Jer. xliii, 5-7), a work is extant which consists of the following 219 three parts, rather loosely connected: (a) i, 2-iii, 8: In the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (586 b.c.), the Jews in Babylon send messages to Jerusalem to the high priest Joiakim, forward money to provide sacrifices for the Temple, and ask prayers for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar. In the letter which the messengers bring to Jerusalem the point is especially emphasized that the present misfortune is but a punishment for the people’s sin and their disobedience to God’s commandments, especially because they did not obey the king of Babylon, as God desired them; (b) iii, 9-iv, 4: Israel is exhorted to return to the source of all wisdom, who is God alone; (c) iv, 5-v, 9: The discouraged people are exhorted to take heart. Though Jerusalem is devastated and the people scattered, God will bring them back into the holy city.

Opinions differ much as to the date of composition. It is the more difficult to decide because the three pieces of which the work is composed are of different character and come from at least two, possibly three, authors. The position of Roman Catholic theologians that the book really belongs to Baruch is untenable. The author was unacquainted with the circumstances of the times (cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 170), and was in the dark as to the situation invented by himself, not having pictured it clearly to his own consciousness. On the one hand, he presupposed the destruction of the city by the Chaldeans (i, 2), yet spoke as if the ritual and the Temple itself still existed (i, 10, 14). Even Ewald’s view, that the book originated in the latter Persian and first Greek period, is far from the truth. There are parallels with the Book of Daniel which make certain literary dependence of one upon the other. Daniel ix, 7-10 corresponds almost literally to Baruch i, 15-18. But it is hardly conceivable that such a very original and creative mind as the author of Daniel copied from Baruch. This brings the book down into the later Maccabean times, on account of the necessary interval between Baruch and Daniel. With this date most of the Protestant critics seem to be satisfied (so Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 173, and De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, p. 603). But it is very questionable whether this is correct, whether, with Hitzig (ZWT, 1860, pp. 262 sqq.) and Kneucker (Das Buch Baruch, Leipsic,1879), the date should not be brought down to the time of Vespasian.

Mention should be made of the fact, first noted by P. E. E. Geiger (Der Psalter Salomos, Augsburg, 1871, p. 137), that Baruch v has the same viewpoint as the Psalter of Solomon xi. The thoughts are in part derived from Isaiah. A literary relationship between Pseudo-Solomon and Pseudo-Baruch can hardly be denied. Considering the psalmlike character of Baruch, it seems more appropriate to grant priority to the psalms than to Baruch. This would lead at least into the time of Pompey, in which the psalms originated (cf. Schürer, Geschichte, iii, 150 sqq.). Besides, the first as well as the third part of the book presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple, the devastation and ruin of the country, and the removal of the inhabitants into captivity (i, 2; ii, 23, 26; iv, 10-16). To be sure, according to the author’s plan, the action is placed in the time of the Chaldeans; but the whole work, with all its exhortations and consolations, suits a similar situation, and is not sufficiently motived, unless the contemporaries of the author lived under the pressure of like conditions (cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 172 sqq.). Circumstances similar to those of the time of the Chaldeans existed again in consequence of the great war of 66-70 a.d. Such a destruction of city and Temple took place neither in the time of the Maccabeans nor in the time of Pompey (to which Graetz assigns the book). Finally, some striking peculiarities suggest the war from 66 to 70. The author considers the misfortune of Israel a punishment for its rebellion against the king of Babylon, and exhorts the people to offer sacrifice and prayer to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar (ii, 21 sqq., i, 10 sqq.). In like manner Josephus (War, II, xvii, 2-4) saw the real cause of the war in the abolition of the sacrifice for the Roman emperor. The entire unhistorical juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar suggests Vespasian and Titus. That parents might eat the flesh of their children during a famine (ii, 3) was already threatened (Lev. xxvi, 29; Deut. xxviii, 53; Jer. xix, 9; Ezek. v, 10), and is stated as a fact (II Kings vi, 28 sqq.; Lam. ii, 20, iv, 10). It may be recalled that the very same thing is also narrated of the war under Vespasian (Josephus, War, VI, iii, 4). In view of these facts the inference is allowable that the Book of Baruch originated in the time of Vespasian. It is first quoted by Athenagoras (“Plea for the Christians,” ix, where Baruch iii, 35 is quoted as the utterance of a prophet), and is also quoted by Irenæus (Hœr., IV, xx, 4; V, xxxv, 1), and Clement of Alexandria (Pœdagogus, I, x, 91-92; II, iii, 36).

The question of the unity of authorship can be treated only in connection with the question of the original language. In the latter respect Jerome says (Prolegomena in Jer.), “It is neither found nor read among the Hebrews.” Over against this in the Hexaplar-Syriac there occurs three times (in i, 17 and ii, 3) the remark “This does not exist in the Hebrew” (cf. Ceriani’s notes to his edition in the Monumenta sacra et profana, i, 1, Milan, 1861-1871). According to this, it maybe assumed that a Hebrew Baruch, corresponding to the Greek which has been preserved, was known to antiquity; and the linguistic character, at least of the first part, confirms this assumption. But the diction from iii, 9 is perceptibly different. Accordingly the view of Fritzsche has much in its favor; viz., that the first part is a translation from the Hebrew; the rest, however, is from a Greek original (Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 171 sqq.). With this it is also decided that there were two authors; the translator of the first part added the rest from his own resources, but both are to be dated in the time of Vespasian. Finally it is worthy of remark that the use of Theodotion’s version of Daniel can be shown (cf. L. E. T. André, Les Apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament, Paris, 1904, pp. 251 sqq.; 220 TLZ, 1904, p. 255). From this it must be inferred that this version is much older than is generally supposed.

6. The Epistle of Jeremiah:

As an addition to the Book of Baruch there is often found the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah (occurring as chap. vi in the Vulgate, in Luther’s Bible, and in the English). Originally it had nothing to do with the Book of Baruch, and in older manuscripts is separated from it. But without any valid reason the two were united at a very early period. The letter is addressed to the exiles designated by Nebuchadnezzar to be led to Babylon. In contents it is a somewhat diffusive and rhetorical exhortation, though in good Greek, against the Babylonian deities, together with an ironical description of their nothingness. Its genuineness is out of the question; for the epistle was certainly originally written in Greek. Besides, the duration of the exile (verse 3) is given as lasting seven generations in opposition to Jer. xxix, 10. Many find in II Macc. ii, 1 sqq. direct reference to this epistle. But what is said there has nothing to do with it. Still less can it be regarded as a reference to the epistle, when the fact is taken into account that in one Targum to Jer. x, 11, this Aramaic verse is designated a “copy” from an epistle of Jeremiah (cf. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 1893, pp. 42 sqq.).

7. Tobit:

The name of this book and of its hero is read in the Vulgate Tobias; but in the Greek text Tobit (or Tobith), in the English translation “Tobit,” where “Tobias” is only the name of the son of Tobit. According to the Greek text, in the first part of the book Tobit himself tells his story, speaking in the first person; from iii, 7, the narrator speaks in the third person. Tobit, a son of Tobiel of the tribe of Naphtali belonged to the exiles who were led away to Nineveh into captivity by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser. He lived there also under the kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon and always distinguished himself by an exemplary piety. Since in spite of this piety he still experienced misfortune, he was derided and ridiculed (i, 1-iii, 6). A similar experience was that of a pious woman named Sara, the daughter of Raguel in Ecbatana (iii, 7-15). Because both prayed to God in their distress, the angel Raphael was sent to deliver both from the sufferings which befell them in their innocence, and to unite Sara and Tobias, the son of Tobit, in marriage (iii, 16-xii, 22). Tobit sang a psalm of praise in honor of God, and lived to be a hundred and forty-eight, and Tobias lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven (xiii, xiv). This is the course of the narrative, which is adorned with many details, exhibits a good talent for composition, and also displays the spirit of the strictly Pharisaic legality. Older theology down to the nineteenth century regarded the story as history; but the narrative is no doubt pure fiction. Its object is obvious; it is to prove that God never forsakes the pious and righteous; on the contrary, he always takes care of them, though they seem to be forsaken; finally that he richly rewards their piety. On this account those who, like Tobit, dwell among the Gentiles should not suffer themselves by the hardships of their external circumstances to become faithless to God.

The contents being so general, it is impossible to fix the time of composition. But with some probability it may be said that the book originated during the last two centuries b.c. There is no reason to go down to the post-Vespasian time, as Hitzig does (ZWT, 1860, pp. 250 sqq.); for here the case is essentially different from that of Baruch. While it is true that from the standpoint of the Assyrian times the destruction of Jerusalem and, conformably to it, its rebuilding also are prophesied (xiv, 4-5; xiii, 9-10, 16 sqq.), the entire book is by no means intended to comfort the readers for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is true that Hitzig infers, from the fact that the author depicts the rebuilding of city and Temple with more extravagant colors than would apply to the historical building, that he did not live while this historical building stood. But a careful consideration of the principal passage sets us right. Chap. xiv, 5 reads: “And they shall build the house but not like to the former, until the times of that age be fulfilled; and afterward they shall return from the places of their captivity, and build up Jerusalem gloriously, and the house of God shall be built in it forever with a glorious building, even as the prophets spake concerning it.” Here two things are plainly distinguished: (a) the historical building of Zerubbabel, which is insignificant (“not like to the former”); and (b) the beautiful building of eternity, which is to follow this at the end of this age, which is still in the future even for the author. The very fact that the writer knew nothing of a repeated catastrophe between the two would indicate that he lived in pre-Vespasian or even in pre-Herodian times. Clear signs of a use of the book are lacking till the second century of the Christian era. Reference is made in xiv, 10 to the legend of Achikar or Achiachar, which is extant in different late recensions (cf. Conybeare, Harris, and Lewis, The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Slavonic Versions, London, 1898). No Hebrew (or Aramaic) copy of the book was known to Origen and his Jewish advisers (Epist. ad Africanum, xiii: “The Jews neither use Tobit nor Judith, nor do they have them in Hebrew”). It is therefore probable that the extant Semitic texts are late. An Aramaic text was edited by A. Neubauer (The Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text from a Unique MS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1878; cf. G. Bicknell, in ZKT, 1878, pp. 216-222; T. Nöldeke, in Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1879, pp. 45-69; and G. H. Dalman, Grammatik des Jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipsic, 1894, pp. 27-29). There exist also two Hebrew compositions generally acknowledged to be of late date (cf. C. D. Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobi’s, Jena, 1800, cxxxviii sqq., ccxvii sqq.; Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, ii, 5, 9 sqq., xiv; T. Nöldeke, Die Alttestamentliche Litteratur, Leipsic, 1868, pp. 108 sqq.). The Aramaic text has this in common with the Latin revision of Jerome (and with this only), that the story of Tobit is narrated from the beginning in the third person, whereas in all other texts, in i, 1-iii, 6, Tobit speaks in the first person. The Aramaic text is thus perhaps identical with, or at any rate nearly related to, that used by Jerome. Dalman for linguistic 221 reasons declares it to be later. But a decision is difficult, since Jerome actually leans more upon the Old Latin. Since the uniform adoption of the third person is evidently secondary, the originality of the Aramaic as against the Greek is out of the question. It is probable that in the Aramaic text also the first person in chap. i, 1-iii, 6 was originally preserved; for it is still used in the so-called Hebrœus Munsteri, which, according to other indications, was made from the Aramaic. But even with this supposition there is no reason to assume an Aramaic text as the original of the Greek (so Fuller in Wace’s Apocrypha, i, 152-155, 164-171). The style of the Greek text makes its originality rather probable. Of the Greek text there are three recensions: (a) the common text contained also in the Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts and followed by the Syriac version to vii, 9; (b) that preserved in the Sinaitic codex upon which the Old Latin leans for the most part; (c) the text of codices 44, 106, 107, which are the basis of the Syriac from vii, 10. The manuscripts named represent in the beginning the common recension, so that this text is preserved only for vi, 9-xiii, 8. In his edition of the Apocrypha, Fritzsche gives all three texts. Swete gives the text of the Vatican and Sinaitic.

8. Judith:

The contents of this book are briefly as follows: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria (sic), overcomes Arphaxad, king of Media, and sends his general, Holofernes, against the Western nations which did not take the field with him against Arphaxad. They are subdued, and their places of worship destroyed (i-iii). Holofernes now attacks the Jewish people, who had recently returned from the captivity and rededicated their temple. In the face of the imminent danger of having their sanctuary profaned, the whole people are bent upon resistance to the utmost, and the high priest Joiakim makes the necessary arrangements. Holofernes directs his main attack upon the fortress Bethulia, which he hopes to conquer by famine (iv-vii). The distress having become very great, a beautiful widow, Judith by name, offers to become the savior of her people. Having been admitted to the hostile camp, she contrives to gain the confidence of Holofernes. While Holofernes lies in a drunken stupor, Judith kills him and then hastens back into the city. The Jews make a sally, put the enemy to flight, and all Israel is saved (viii-xiv). Judith is praised as the savior of the people, and at her death at the advanced age of 105 years is greatly lamented by all the nation (xv-xvi).

As is the case in the Book of Tobit, so here there can be no doubt that the contents is not history but a didactic narrative. The historical details are so incredibly confused, and the parenetic object is so manifest, that only by wilfully closing the eyes can one fail to see that the book is fiction. What the parenetic object is, is plain enough: The Jewish people was to be encouraged to fight with the sword boldly and resolutely, for the continuance of its faith and worship, even against a superior enemy. This points clearly to Maccabean times. It may be admitted that the presupposed historical background would fit well the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, for this king in one of his campaigns against Phenicia and Egypt (c. 350 B.C.) made prisoners among the Jews; and Holofernes of Cappadocia and the eunuch Bagoes were the most prominent generals in these campaigns. Since, in the history of Judith, both Holofernes and the eunuch Bagoes play parts (xii, 11 sqq., xiii,1 sqq., xiv, 14), it seems easy to locate the Judith story in the time of Ochus.

But the author mentions also Nebuchadnezzar. All that can be said is that in his literary license the author took a part of his material from events in the time of Ochus (T. Nöldeke, Die alttestamentliche Litteratur, Leipsic, 1868, p. 96; and Aufsätze zur persischen Geschichte, Leipsic, 1887, p. 78). But he certainly wrote later. And, since the story deals with a time of religious oppression, Maccabean times are indicated as the date of composition (cf. Fritzsche, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, and Nöldeke). Volkmar, Hitzig, and Graetz date it in the time of Trajan. Volkmar especially has vainly expended much learning and fancy to prove that the history of the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Holofernes is merely a disguised representation of the campaigns of Trajan and his generals against the Parthians and the Jews. The fact that Clement of Rome (lv) mentions Judith forbids this late dating. It is generally agreed that the Greek text is a translation of a Hebrew original, as is evident from the entire coloring of the language and from mistakes in the translation (i, 8; ii, 2; iii, 1, 9, 10; cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, ii, 115 sqq.). The Aramaic recension which Jerome perused is not to be regarded as the original, since neither Origen nor his Jewish advisers knew of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) text (Epist. ad Africanum, xiii, quoted above). It appears that the original was lost before Origen’s time, and that the Aramaic translation used by Jerome originated after that time. The extant paraphrastic Hebrew recensions are still later products (cf. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Berlin, 1832, pp. 124 sqq.; Lipsius, in ZWT, 1867, pp. 337-366; Ball, in Wace’s Apocrypha, i, 252-257; Gaster, in PSBA, xvi, 1894, pp. 156-163). Of the Greek text three recensions are extant: (a) the common and original one; (b) that of the codices 19, 108; (c) that of 58, which was followed by the Syriac and the Old Latin.

9. I Maccabees:

The name Maccabeus was originally only the surname of Judas, the son of Mattathias (I Macc. ii, 4: “Judas who was called Maccabeus”). By it Judas was at all events to be characterized as a valiant hero. The assured meaning of the name is yet to be found. From Judas the name was afterward applied to the whole family, even to the whole party of which Judas became leader. So, generally, the Maccabeans were the believing Israelites, who, in defense of the faith of their fathers, undertook the struggle against the Syrian overlords. I Maccabees tells the story of these struggles and the history of the independent Jewish community which was the fruit of these struggles up to the time of the death of the high priest Simon (135 B.C.). It commences with the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.C.), narrates how his efforts at a forcible 222 suppression of the Jewish religion became the cause of the open revolt against Syrian overlordship, describes the changing results of this revolt under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus until his death (161 B.C.); then the further course of the Maccabean efforts under the guidance of Jonathan, brother of Judas, who, by adroitly taking advantage of circumstances, was able to obtain from the Syrian kings recognition of his status as prince and high priest of the Jews (161-143 B.C.); finally the history of the high priest Simon, a third brother (143-135 B.C.). The narrative is rich in detail and by its unadorned simplicity wins a confidence which, so far as Jewish history is concerned, is not shaken by the fact that the author shows himself badly informed on matters concerning foreign nations, such as the Romans. The exaggerated numbers even do not detract from its credibility in other things. That a narrative which enters so into detail must be based upon other sources is a matter of course, though nothing more definite can be stated concerning the character of the sources. A reference to these seems to be indicated in ix, 22 (cf. Grimm, in Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, iii, 22 sqq.). The book compares to good advantage with other historical books in that it fixes all important events according to an established chronology, the Seleucidan era, which begins in the autumn of 312 B.C. But I Maccabees apparently makes the era begin in the spring of that year. The time of composition can be fixed with great probability within very narrow limits. On the one hand the author knew a chronicle of the acts of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.; cf. xvi, 24). From this can be inferred that he wrote after John’s reign. On the other hand, he certainly wrote before the expedition of Pompey, since the Romans were for him friends and protectors of the Jewish people. The composition belongs therefore to an early decade of the first pre-Christian century. That the book was originally written in Hebrew is evident from its linguistic character, a conclusion confirmed by the testimony of Origen and Jerome; the former (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, xxv, 3) gives the Hebrew title of the book, the meaning of which, on account of the uncertainty of the text-tradition, is difficult to ascertain. Jerome says in the Prologus galeatus: “I Maccabees I found in Hebrew; II Maccabees is Greek, as can be proved from the very language.” The Greek translation was used by Josephus (cf. Grimm, in Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, p. 28; H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, Leipsic, 1879, pp. 80-90). It is strange that Josephus knows hardly anything of chaps. xiv-xvi. J. von Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, Kiel, 1882, pp. 60-91) supposed therefore that the book originally did not have these chapters and that the first copy differed also in other respects from the present. But the very free use made by Josephus offers no sufficient support for this theory. A Hebrew recension which A. Schweizer (Untersuchungen über die Reste eines hebräischen Textes vom ersten Makkabäerbuch, Berlin, 1901) considers original was made in the Middle Ages from the Latin (cf. TLZ, 1901, p. 605; REJ, xliii, 1901, pp. 215-221).

10. II Maccabees:

This book is parallel with I Maccabees except that it begins a little earlier; viz., with the last year of Seleucus IV, Philopator, brother and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, and closes much earlier; viz., with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor (161 B.C.). It therefore covers a much shorter period than the first. In its literary, historical, and religious character it differs much from I Maccabees. It is more rhetorical, and its language and style prove that it was originally produced in Greek. In credibility it stands far below I Maccabees. It narrates in part the same events, in part different events, and in a different order. On the whole, in cases of conflict between the two, it is better to follow I Maccabees, though it may be admitted that in some details the second may here and there follow a better tradition. The means by which to decide with certainty in every case no longer exist; and the second book deserves a less degree of confidence, because its purpose is by no means exclusively historical. The author’s interest was evidently more narrowly religious than that of the first. His immediate object was not to narrate the deeds of a glorious past, but to influence the present religiously.

Of the sources, the author himself says (ii, 19 sqq.) that his book is only an epitome of the large work of Jason of Cyrene, which in five books narrated the history of the Maccabean struggles in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Antiochus Eupator. Unfortunately, this Jason of Cyrene is otherwise wholly unknown. This much can be said of the time of the epitomist with some certainty, that he wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem, as may be inferred from the purpose of the book and also from xv, 37. Josephus seems to have read neither the work of Jason nor that of the epitomist. It is possible that the description of the tyrants who persecuted the pious and virtuous, given in Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, xiii, depends upon II Maccabees (so P. E. Lucius, Der Essenismus, Strasburg, 1881, pp. 36-39). Heb. xi, 35 sqq. seems to refer to II Macc. vi and vii. The first express quotation is found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv, ANF, ii, 467): “Aristobulus, who is mentioned by the composer of the epitome of the books of the Maccabees” (cf. II Macc. i, 10).

11. III Maccabees:

If II Maccabees falls short of credibility when compared with the first, the third can lay still less claim to the character of a historical document. It has the name “Book of the Maccabees” very improperly and only because it treats also of the oppression and deliverance of believing Israelites. It has nothing to do with the time of the Maccabees. The contents are as follows: Ptolemy IV, Philopator (222-205 B.C.) visits the temple at Jerusalem after his victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia (217 B.C.). Being seized with a desire to penetrate into the Holy of Holies, and not heeding the entreaties of the people to forego his outrageous purpose, the king is punished when about to carry out his design by falling paralyzed to the ground. Enraged at this, on his arrival in Egypt, he wreaks his vengeance on the Alexandrian Jews. But all his 223 decrees are frustrated by God’s miraculous intervention. The king now becomes a friend and benefactor of the Jews, whom he permits to kill the apostates, a privilege of which they make much use.

The style in which this narrative is written corresponds closely to the insipidity of the contents. The book is more bombastic and unnatural than II Maccabees. Since the narrative evinces its unhistorical character, it is necessary only to inquire what facts possibly form the basis of or induced its composition. To begin with, it is to be remembered here that Josephus transfers the story of the confinement of Jews in the Hippodrome to be trodden down by elephants to the reign of Ptolemy VII, Physcon (Apion ii, 5); like III Maccabees (vi, 36), he remarks that in remembrance of the deliverance experienced, the Alexandrian Jews annually celebrated a festival. According to this the narrative seems to have some historical foundation; and as concerns the chronology, Josephus is to be followed rather than III Maccabees. At all events this work is a late production. The author knows the Apocryphal additions to Daniel (cf. vi, 6). The book is mentioned by Eusebius (Chron., ed. Schöne, ii, 122 sqq.) in the Canones Apostolorum (lxxxv), by Theodoret, and others (Grimm, in Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, p. 21). The abrupt beginning shows the book has not come down complete.

12. Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus):

The Book of Proverbs by Jesus the son of Sirach is the extra-canonical double of the canonical Book of Proverbs. Like that, it gives the results of practical wisdom in poetical form. It comprises the whole range of human life in all directions and relations, and aims at giving the correct point of view for all human enterprises so they may be correct as concerns conduct. The highest as well as the lowest, the greatest as well as the smallest, are brought within the sphere of the author’s reflections and counsels. He speaks of the fear of God and of divine wisdom, of friendship and mercy, of self-control and moderation, and of other virtues; he speaks also of the contrary vices. He speaks of the special tasks which differences in age, sex, calling, and in civic and social position make obligatory upon the individual. He speaks of the mutual relations between parents and children, masters and servants, high and low, rich and poor. He gives maxims of prudence for social intercourse and political behavior. The form in which he clothes his thoughts is throughout that of Hebrew poetry. No plan for the book is discernible. The writer arranges his ideas in groups, but these groups are not arranged with reference to any scheme. The morality which runs through the whole is indeed somewhat homely, sometimes purely utilitarian. But on the whole there is a solid, seriously moral disposition expressed in the book, combined with a rational and practical contemplation of the world. What the author offers is the ripe fruit of a many-sided education and of a long experience.

The extant Greek text is, as may be seen from the preface, only a translation. Jerome asserts that he had seen a Hebrew exemplar (cf. the Preface to his translation of the Solomonic books, ed. Vallarsi, ix, 1293 sqq.): “There is a right praiseworthy book of Jesus the son of Sirach and a pseudepigraphical one which is called the Wisdom of Solomon. The first I found in the Hebrew called ‘Proverbs,’ and not ‘Ecclesiasticus,’ as among the Latins, to which are added Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs; so that they agreed with the books of Solomon not only in number, but also in the kind of matter."

Prior to 1896, only a few sayings of the Hebrew original, which are quoted in Rabbinic literature, were known (collected by Schechter in JQR, iii, 1891, pp. 682-706; still more completely by Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, London, 1897, pp. xix-xxviii). Since 1896 large portions of the Hebrew text have been discovered. They all come from the genizah (“lumber-room”) of the ancient synagogue at Cairo. The fragments are remains of four different manuscripts, and supplement each other in such a way that, on the whole, two-thirds of the Hebrew text has been recovered. Of the flood of literature which these finds have induced the principal text-publications are mentioned below (especially important are The Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, London, 1901, a facsimile of all the leaves; the condensed work of N. Peters, Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, Freiburg, 1902; and R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 1906, and Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach hebräisch und deutsch herausgegeben, 1906). The denial of the originality of the Hebrew text by Margoliouth, Bickell, and formerly also by Levi, must be called an aberration. Almost all competent scholars regard this as beyond doubt. Besides the Greek versions and the Hebrew fragments, there is still another witness, the Syriac translation. This was not made from the Greek, like the other Syriac texts of the Apocrypha, but directly from the Hebrew. From the passage quoted above from Jerome, it is seen that the book was called “Proverbs” in the Hebrew. In Greek manuscripts the standing title is “The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.” In the Latin Church the title Ecclesiasticus has become customary since the time of Cyprian.

The author calls himself “Jesus the Son of Sirach the Jerusalemite” (l, 27). The preface of his grandson, the translator, gives his date. He says of himself that he came into Egypt “in the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes.” This can not mean the translator’s thirty-eighth year of life, but the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes. Of the two Ptolemies who had the name “Euergetes” the first ruled only twenty-five years. Consequently, only the second, whose full name was Ptolemæus VII, Physcon Euergetes II, can be meant. He ruled conjointly with his brother from 170 B.C. and was sole king from 145 B.C. But his regnal years were reckoned from the former date. According to this, the thirty-eighth year in which the grandson of Jesus Sirach came into Egypt was 132 B.C. The grandfather, the author of the book, may have lived and written about 190-170 B.C. It is singular that in the Latin Church 224 the book has usually been regarded as a work of Solomon, on which account some Western canonical lists reckon five Solomonic writings (T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii, 151, 245, 251, 272, 1007 sqq.).

13. The Wisdom of Solomon:

In some books of the Old Testament, wisdom, that is, the wisdom resting in God and coming from him, is praised as the highest good, as the source of all perfection and the giver of all happiness and blessing (cf. Prov. viii-ix and Job xxviii, 12 sqq.). In later literature this was a favorite thought, and was further developed. It is met with again in Jesus Sirach and in the Wisdom of Solomon. The author of this book, who assumes the name of Solomon, reproaches his royal colleagues, the Gentile rulers (i, 1; vi, 1), with the folly of impiety and especially of idolatry. Only the pious and righteous is truly happy; the impious falls under divine judgment. Idolatry is the height of folly. In opposition to it the author recommends true wisdom, using the idea in its fullest possible content. For he understands by the word “wisdom” subjective as well as objective, human as well as divine. Both have one meaning, and are identical in essence. Human wisdom adjusts true knowledge to all spheres of life. It instructs man in the ways of God and teaches him God’s holy will. On this account it is the source of all happiness and all true joy to him who gives himself to it. It imparts not only honor and glory but also eternal life and everlasting salvation. And this it can do only because human wisdom is but an emanation from the divine wisdom, or, rather, is identical with it. Originally it was joint possessor with God of his throne (ix, 4); it was present when God created the world (ix, 9); it is most intimately connected with God and initiated into God’s knowledge (viii, 3-4); it is a breathing of the power of God, an effulgence from the glory of the Almighty (vii, 25-26); its action is identical with God’s; it works all things (viii, 5), orders all things (viii, 1), and renews all things (vii, 27). From these fundamental thoughts the standpoint of the author is evident; he was a Jewish philosopher. On the one hand, he occupied throughout the standpoint of Old Testament revelation; on the other hand, he had acquired also a peculiar philosophical culture. He had learned not only from the sages of his people, but also from the Hellenes, from Plato and the Stoics. He thus belongs to that school, the classical representative of which is Philo, which can be designated as a marriage of Jewish faith with Greek philosophical culture. With this everything is said that can be said of the author of the book. The book stands between Jesus Sirach and Philo, and is the bridge from the one to the other. As to its date, it can be put with some probability between the two, 150-50 B.C. (cf. Grimm, in Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, vi, 32-34), though the inference from priority in thought to priority in time is not cogent. It is certainly wrong to think, like Weisse and others, of a Christian author. Clear traces of an acquaintance with the book are found in the New Testament (cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Commentary on Romans, 1895, pp. 51-52, 267-269). It is first quoted in the time of Irenæus (Eusebius, Hist eccl., v, 26). That the book was originally written in Greek is a matter of course, considering its lofty rhetoric, which is somewhat artificial and overdone. Jerome says, “The very style betrays Greek eloquence."

E. Schürer.

Bibliography: Texts, Greek, along with the Septuagint: Codex A, by Grabe, 4 vols., Oxford, 1707-20; by H. H. Baber, 3 vols., London, 1812-26; facsimile ed., by E. M. Thompson, ib. 1881. Vatican Codex and Codex Friderico-Augustanus, by Tischendorf, Leipsic, 1846, and 4 vols., Rome, 1862. Codex B, by Mai, 5 vols., Rome, 1857; by C. Vercellone and J. Cozza, 6 vols., ib. 1868-81 (a corrected ed. of Mai); photographic reproduction, 6 vols., ib. 1889-90. Critical and comparative text: H. B. Swete, Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 3 vols., Svo, Cambridge, 1895-99 (a 4to ed. is in preparation).

Separate editions of the Apocrypha: A. Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus veteris testamenti, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1722-23; by Augusti, Leipsic, 1804; and by Apel, ib. 1804; O. F. Fritzsche Libri Apocryphi, ib. 1871 (apart from Swete’s, the best edition). Latin: by Stephens, Geneva, 1556-57; the Sixtine ed., 3 vols., Rome, 1590 (corrected, 1592, from which all Roman Catholic editions are copied). P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum . . . vetus italica, Reims, 1739-49 (Old Latin text). Syriac: P. de Lagarde, Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi Syriace, Leipsic, 1861; by Ceriani, Codex Ambrosianus B 21, photolithographic ed., 2 vols., Milan, 1876-83, and Codex Ambrosianus C 313, photolithographic ed., Milan, 1874, also Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah, Milan, 1861; by C. Bugati, in Syriac the additions to the Book of Daniel, Milan, 1788. German: E. Kautzsch, with the help of numerous scholars, Die Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2 vols., Tübingen, 1900 (contains introduction, notes, and brief bibliographies). English: The older Bibles usually contained the Apocrypha; besides these, the Variorum ed. by C. J. Ball, London, 1892 (contains full notes); the Bagster ed., London, n.d. (authorized text; the Revised Version was issued at Cambridge, 1895); consult also: W. R. Churton, Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, London, 1884. Lexicon: Wahl, Clavis . . . apocryphorum, Leipsic, 1853.

Introductions: L. E. T. André, Les Apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament, Florence, 1903; B. Welte, Die deuterokanonischen Bücher, in J. G. Herbst, Einleitung, II, iii, Freiburg, 1844; W. M. L. de Wette, Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher, 8th ed. by Schrader, Berlin, 1869; S. J. Cornely, Introductio in veteris testamenti libros . . . ii, 1-2, Paris, 1887; F. Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments, Leipsic, 1891 (Eng. transl., London, 1892); F. E. König, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, mit Einschluss der Apokryphen, Bonn, 1893; Schürer, Geschichte, iii, 1898 (Eng. transl., II, iii, 1891; contains general and special introduction and notes of literature); K. Budde, Geschichte der althebräischen Litteratur: Apocryphen, van A. Bertholet, Leipsic, 1906; S. N. Sedgwick, The Story of the Apocrypha, London, 1906.

Exegetical literature on the entire Apocrypha: O. Zöckler, in Kurzgefasster Kommentar, Die Apokryphen, Munich, 1891; O. F. Fritzsche and C. L. W. Grimm, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, Leipsic, 1851-60; H. J. von Holtzmann, Die apokryphischen Bücher, ib.1869; E. Reuss, La Bible, Ancien Testament, vi, vii, Paris, 1878-79; E. C. Bissell, Apocrypha of the Old Testament, New York, 1880, addition to the Eng. transl. of Lange’s commentary; The Old Testament, Authorized Version, with Brief Commentary, Apocryphal Books, London, S.P.C.K., 1881; H. Wace, Holy Bible, with . . . Commentary, Apocrypha, 2 vols., London, 1888, in the Speaker’s Commentary.

On the individual books: The Apocryphal Ezra; the text and notes by Bensly and James in TS, iii, 2, Cambridge, 1895; R. L. Bensly, Missing Fragment of the Fourth Book of Ezra, London, 1875; DB, s. v. Esdras, i (1898), 758-766; R. Basset Les Apocryphes éthiopiens traduites en français, Paris, 1899; H. Gunkel, Der Prophet Ezra, Tübingen, 1900; EB, s. v. Ezra, the Greek, ii, 1488-94; JE, s. v. Esdras, v, 219-222.

Apocryphal Esther: A. Scholtz, Kommentar über das Buch Esther mit . . . Zusätzen und über Susanna, Würzburg,225 1892, also Die Namen im Buche Esther, in TQ, 1890, pp. 209-264; Jacob, Das Buch Esther bei den LXX, in ZATW, x (1890), 241-298; JE, v, 237-241.

Apocryphal additions to Daniel: O. Bardenhewer, Biblische Studien, ii, 2-3, pp. 155-204, Freiburg, 1897; vi, 3-4, ib. 1901; Wiederholt, in TQ, 1869, 287 sqq., 377 sqq., 1871, 373 sqq., 1872, 554 sqq.; Brill, in Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Litteratur, iii (1877), 1-69, viii (1887), 22 sqq.; A. Scholz, see above under Esther; EB, i, 1013-1015; DB, i, 267-268, iv, 630-632, 754-756; W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel; A Study, Cambridge, 1906.

Prayer of Manasseh: E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii, 4, p. 6 sqq., and iv, Stuttgart, 1899.

Baruch: J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, Leipsic, 1879 (the best book on the subject); H. A. C. Hävernick, De libro Baruchi . . . commentarius criticus, Königsberg, 1843; F. H. Reusch, Erklärung des Buches Baruch, Freiburg, 1853; Grätz, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1887, pp. 385-401; DB, i, 251-254; EB, i, 492-494; JE, ii, 556-557.

Epistle of Jeremiah: DB, ii, 578-579; EB, ii, 2395.

Tobit: Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, ed. by G. A. Kohut, 264-338, Berlin, 1897; F. H. Reusch, Das Buch Tobias, Freiburg, 1857; A. Neubauer, Tobit, a Chaldee Text, Oxford, 1878; A. Scholz, Commentar zum Buche Tobias, Würzburg, 1889; M. Rosenmann, Studien zum Buche Tobit, Berlin, 1894; F. C. Conybeare, J. R. Harris, and L. Lewis, Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic . . . Versions, London 1898; E. Cosquin, Le Livre de Tobie et l’histoire du Ahikar, in Revue Biblique, Jan., 1899; DB, iv, 785-789; JE, xii, 171-172.

Judith: A. Scholz, Das Buch Judith, eine Prophetie, Würzburg, 1885; idem, Commentar zum Buche Judith, ib. 1887; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, iii, 1822-33; JE, vii, 388-390.

The Books of Maccabees: K. F. Keil, Commentar, Leipsic, 1875 (still the best); C. Bertheau, De secundo libro Maccabœorum, Göttingen, 1829 (quite useful); H. Ewald, Geschichte, iv, 602 sqq., Göttingen, 1864; H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, iii, 613-615, 671-684, Leipsic, 1884; A. Schlatten, Jason von Cyrene, Munich, 1891; G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, pp. 258 sqq., Marburg, 1895, Eng. transl., pp. 341-345, Edinburgh, 1901; H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung, pp. 64-65, Göttingen, 1895; W. Fairweather and J. S. Black, in Cambridge Bible for Schools, Cambridge, 1897; Abrahams, in JQR, 1896, pp 39-58, 1897, pp. 39 sqq.; A Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im II Makkabäerbuche, Vienna, 1899; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, Berlin, 1900; DB, iii, 187-196; EB, iii, 2857-81; Stuys, De Maccabœorum libris, Amsterdam, 1904; JE, viii, 239 sqq.

Ecclesiasticus: C. Seligmann, Das Buch der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Breslau, 1883; A. Astier, Introduction au livre de l’Ecclésiastique, Strasburg, 1861; T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon, or the Wisdom of the Old Testament, London, 1887; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 246-282, ib. 1889 (text-critical); H. Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie Judéo-Alexandrine, pp. 160-210, 313-372, Paris, 1890; D. S. Margoliouth, The Place of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew Literature, Oxford, 1890; E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, pp. 48-59, Tübingen, 1893; I. Levi, L’Ecclésiastique, ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira, Paris, 1898; H. Herkenne, De veteris Latinœ ecclesiastici capitibus, i-xliii, Leipsic, 1899 (important for the text); also in Bardenhewer’s Biblische Studien, vi, 1, 2, pp. 129-14, 1901; N. Peters, ib. iii, 3, 1895; EB, i, 1164-1179, iv, 4640-51; DB, iv, 539-551; JE, xi, 388-397. On the recently discovered Hebrew text consult: Facsimiles of the Fragments recovered of the Book of Ecclus. in Hebrew, Oxford, 1901 (a complete edition); A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1897 (text and discussion); A. Schlatter, Das neugefundene hebräische Stück des Sirach, Gütersloh, 1897; R. Smend, Das hebräische Fragment . . . des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1897; F. E. König, Die Originalität des neulich entdeckten Sirach Textes, Freiburg, 1899; D. S. Margoliouth, Origin of the “Original Hebrew” of Ecclus., London, 1899 (combats originality of the Hebrew text); S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira . . . from Heb. MSS. in the Cairo Genizah Collection, Cambridge, 1899 (chiefly textual); H. L. Strack, Die Sprüche Jesus des Sohnes Sirach, Leipsic, 1903; I. Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, with Notes and Glossary, Leyden, 1904; most of the literature on the new text appeared in periodicals of the year 1900; cf. Theologischer Jahresbericht for 1900 (gives 51 titles).

Wisdom of Solomon: W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom, London, 1881; E. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus, Berlin, 1886; J. Drummond, Philo Judœus, i, 177-229, London, 1888; P. Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf . . . Weisheit Salomos, Halle, 1889; H. Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie Judéo-Alexandrine, pp. 201-307, 373-412, Paris, 1890; DB, iv, 928-931; EB, iv, 5336-49; JE, xii, 538-540.

B. New Testament Apocrypha:

The relation between the canonical and the apocryphal writings of the New Testament is quite different from that between the same classes of books of the Old Testament. The Old Testament Apocrypha aim simply at a continuation of sacred history and strive to accomplish their purpose in a legitimate manner though without divine authority. The apocryphal writings connected with the New Testament, on the contrary, aim to introduce spurious sources among the genuine. They are writings which by name and contents pretend to be canonical, though the Church, because of their dubious origin and contents, has not given them a place in the canon. Like the canonical books of the New Testament, they may be divided into four classes: I. Gospels; lI. Acts of the Apostles; III. Epistles of the Apostles; IV. Apocalypses.

These writings are of very unequal value. The apocryphal Acts seem to have had the most influence in the Church; for they, more than the Gospels, were looked upon as “the source and mother of all heresy.” Of course, not all of these writings were composed directly for heretical purposes. Many of them, no doubt, had more innocent motives, such as mere “pious fraud.” But from their first appearance a suspicion of heresy clung to them all and contributed much to put the whole literature under ban.

When the canon of the New Testament was fixed and the apocryphal books thereby became outlawed, they ceased to be read; and in the Middle Ages, even their names were forgotten. Nevertheless, although the books themselves were delivered over to contempt and oblivion, it was not so with their contents. From their fables sprang sacred legends, which were kept alive in the Church during the Middle Ages as “ecclesiastical tradition,” which was often utilized in the development of its dogma. Indeed, numerous dogmas, usages, and traditions hark back to these apocryphal writings; and it was consequently of as much moment to the Protestant Church to subject this whole literature to a thorough investigation as it was to the Roman Church to keep the whole matter in convenient obscurity. The careful study of these writings in modern times has proved of great value, revealing a wealth of material usable for the elucidation of archeological and dogmatic problems. Study of them has become a distinct department of the theological curriculum.

I. Apocryphal Gospels:

Of the many apocryphal Gospels (J. A. Fabricius, in his Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1703, reckons over fifty), some have come down entire, others only in fragments; and of a few only the names are known. The method employed in these 226 compositions is always the same, whether the author intended simply to collect and arrange what was floating in the general tradition or intended to produce a definite dogmatic effect. He rarely relied on his own invention; but generally elaborated what was hinted at in the canonical Gospels, transformed words of Jesus into deeds, described the fulfilment of an Old Testament prophecy in a slavishly literal manner, or represented Jesus as working marvels closely resembling but surpassing Old Testament miracles. The work done, the author took care to conceal his own name, and inscribed his book with the name of some apostle or disciple, in order to give it authority. In the following list those Gospels are first mentioned the texts of which have been preserved.

1. The Protevangelium of James: This was ascribed to James, the brother of the Lord; in the index of Gelasius and Hormisdas it is called the “Gospel of James the Less [Younger].” It has twenty-five chapters, and covers the period from the announcement of the birth of Mary to the murder of the innocents. It is very old, perhaps of the second century, was widely circulated, and shows traces of Ebionitic origin. The text is given by Tischendorf (Evangelia Apocrypha, 2d ed., Leipsic, 1876; Eng. transl. by A. Walker, ANF, viii, 361-367), also by Conybeare from an Armenian manuscript (AJT, i, 1897, pp. 424 sqq.).

2. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, or Book of the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Infancy of the Savior: This begins with the announcement of the birth of Mary, and closes with the youth of Jesus, and is contained in forty-two chapters. It seems to be of Latin origin, and to have been drawn from the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of Thomas (Eng. transl., ANF, viii, 368-383).

3. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary: This contains in ten chapters the history of Mary before the birth of Jesus. It covers therefore nearly the same ground as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, but is a little later in date (Eng. transl., ANF, viii, 384-387).

4. The History of Joseph the Carpenter: This contains in thirty-two chapters a biography of Joseph, and gives an elaborate description of his death. It was evidently written in glorification of Joseph, and was intended for recital on the day of his festival. It probably belongs to the fourth century; and, as Joseph was a favorite of the Monophysite Copts, Coptic (and not Arabic) was most likely the language of the original (Eng. transl., ANF, viii, 388-394).

5. The Gospel of Thomas: This, next to the Protevangelium of James, was the oldest and most popular of the Apocryphal Gospels. It was in use as early as the middle of the second century, among the Gnostics with whom it originated, especially among those who held Docetic views of the person of Christ. It is extant in two Greek recensions, in a Latin and in a Syriac version; all of which have somewhat expanded titles. The two Greek recensions and the Latin version are given by Tischendorf (pp. 140-180); English translation of the three by Walker (ANF, viii, 395-404).

6. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy: This comprises in fifty-five chapters the period from the birth of Jesus to his twelfth year, and consists mostly of stories dealing with the residence in Egypt. The first nine chapters follow very closely the Protevangelium of James; the last twenty chapters follow the Gospel of Thomas; the part between seems to rest on some national tradition, which explains the favor it found among the Arabs, as well as the circumstance that several of its details were incorporated into the Koran. The whole work has an Oriental character, and shows contact with magic and demonology and with Zoroastrian ideas. No more definite date for its composition can be fixed than that it antedated the Koran. The Arabic text is probably a translation from the Syriac; and no manuscript is earlier than the thirteenth century. Tischendorf published a revised Latin translation; English version by Walker (ANF, viii, 405-415).

7. The Gospel of Nicodemus: This consists of two separate works, the Deeds [or Acts] of Pilate and The Descent of Christ to the Underworld, which were united at an early date, and the whole did not receive the title “Gospel of Nicodemus” until after the time of Charlemagne. The former of these two works is of some importance for the explanation and further elucidation of the canonical Gospels (cf. Lipsius, Die Pilatusakten, 2 ed., Kiel, 1886), while the latter is of very little interest. The former contains a detailed account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and of the action of the Sanhedrin subsequent to his death, which was intended to furnish proof of the resurrection and ascension. The latter contains an account by two men, Carinus and Leucius, who had been raised from the dead. The text of the Gospel of Nicodemus is given by J. C. Thilo (Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Leipsic, 1832), who furnishes a list of translations into English, French, Italian, and German, and by Tischendorf; English translation by Walker (ANF, viii, 416-458).

In most of the manuscripts containing these two works and in close connection with them occur other writings; namely: (a) An Epistle of Pilate to the emperor, containing a report on the resurrection of Christ. (b) An Epistle of Pontius Pilate, another letter, in which he excuses the injustice of his decision by the impossibility of resisting the prevailing excitement. It was widely diffused in early times. (c) The Report of Pilate on the trial, execution, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (d) The Judgment of Pilate, a report of the examination of Pilate before the emperor, his condemnation and execution. Others which deserve nothing more than mention of their titles are: (e) The Death of Pilate; (f) The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea; (g) The Avenging of the Savior; (h) The Reply of Tiberius to Pilate (Eng. transls., ANF, viii, 459-476).

8-37. Apocryphal Gospels Preserved only in Fragments or Known only by Name: Besides the Gospels mentioned above there were others, of which there remain only a few fragments or only the names: (8) The Gospel according to the Egyptians: Quoted by Clement of Rome and 227 Clement of Alexandria, and mentioned by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It was used by the Encratites and Sabellians [and composed either at Antioch (Zahn) or in Egypt (Harnack) in the middle of the second century]. (9) The Eternal Gospel: The work of a Minorite of the thirteenth century, based upon Rev. xiv, 6. It was condemned by Pope Alexander IV. It is mentioned here solely because of its name and is not properly reckoned among the apocryphal Gospels (see Joachim of Fiore). (10) The Gospel of Andrew: Perhaps the same as the Acts of Andrew (see below II, 6). (11) The Gospel of Apelles: Possibly a mutilated version of a canonical Gospel like that of Marcion (cf. A. Harnack, De Apellis gnosi monarchia, Leipsic, 1874, p. 75). (12) The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: Jerome identified this with what he calls the Gospel among the Hebrews. (13) The Gospel of Barnabas. (14) The Gospel of Bartholomew: On the tradition that Bartholomew brought the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to India, where it was found by Pantænus, cf. Fabricius, i, 341. (15) The Gospel of Basilides. (16) The Gospel of Cerinthus: Mentioned by Epiphanius ((Hær., li, 7); perhaps a mutilated version of the Gospel according to Matthew, similar to that used by the Carpocratians. (17) The Gospel of the Ebionites: Epiphanius ((Hær., xxx, 13, 16, 21) has preserved fragments of this Gospel which he says was a mutilated Gospel of Matthew called by the Ebionites The Hebrew Gospel. It is not identical with the Gospel of the Nazarenes. (18) The Gospel of Eve: Mentioned by Epiphanius as in use among certain Gnostics (Hær., xxvi, 2, 3, and 5). [Preuschen prints the extracts quoted by Epiphanius as a fragment of an Ophite Gospel (Antilegomena, Giessen, 1901, p. 80). Jesus is represented as saying in a voice of thunder: “I am thou, and thou art I, and wherever thou art there am I, and in all things I am sown. And from whencesoever thou gatherest me, in gathering me thou gatherest thyself.” Cf. J. H. Ropes, Die Sprüche Jesu, Leipsic, 1896, p. 56.] (19) The Gospel according to the Hebrews: According to the testimony of Jerome, this book was identical with the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and was written in Aramaic in Hebrew characters, used among the Nazarenes, and translated by himself into Greek and Latin. (20) The Gospel of James the Elder: Said to have been discovered in 1595 in Spain, where, according to tradition, James labored. (21) John’s Account of the Departure of Mary: It exists in Greek, in two Latin versions (all three translated into English by Walker, ANF, viii, 587-598), also in Syriac, Sahidic, and Arabic versions. (22) The Gospel of Judas Iscariot: According to Irenæus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, used among the Cainites, a Gnostic sect. (23) The Gospel of Leucius. (24) The Gospel of Lucian and Hesychius: Mentioned as forgeries by the Decretum Gelasii (VI, xiv, 15). Jerome (“Prologue to the Gospels”) believes that they were only the first recensions of the Gospel text, though he also charges the two men with unauthorized tampering with the text. Lucian was a presbyter at Antioch; Hesychius was a bishop in Egypt toward the end of the third century. (25) The Gospels of the Manicheans: These were four in number (a) The Gospel of Thomas, a disciple of Manes (this Gospel must be distinguished from the other Gospel of Thomas, see 5 above); (b) The Living Gospel; (c) The Gospel of Philip; (d) The Gospel of Abdas. (26) The Gospel of Marcion: Marcion, the founder of the famous anti-Jewish sect known as Marcionites, admitted only Pauline writings into his canon. He lived in the first half of the second century. The passages in which Paul speaks of his Gospel (Rom. ii, 16; Gal. i, 8; II Tim. ii, 9) obviously suggested the attribution to him of a special Gospel. Marcion regarded the Gospel of Luke as Paul’s, but he obtained this Gospel only by eliminating from Luke all Jewish elements, as is attested by Irenæus, Origen, and Tertullian. The latter two quote the corrupted passages. (27) The Questions, Greater and Lesser, of Mary: Two works of obscene contents, used by some Gnostics, according to Epiphanius (Hær., xxvi, 8). (28) The Apocryphal Gospel of Matthew. (29) The Narrative of the Legal Priesthood of Christ. (30) The Gospel of Perfection: Used by the Basilidians and other Gnostics, not the same as the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Eve (cf. Fabricius, i, 373; ii, 550). (31) The Gospel of Peter: Mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, and used by the congregation at Rhossus in Cilicia toward the end of the second century. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it there (c. 191 A.D.) and after examination condemned it (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi, 12). An important fragment of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in 1886 in a grave, supposed to be that of a monk, in an ancient cemetery at Akhmim, the ancient Panopolis in Upper Egypt. It was published in 1892 (Memoirs of the French Archeological Mission at Cairo, IX, i). The Gospel of Peter was edited by Harnack (2d ed., 1893), Zahn (1893), Von Schubert (1893), and Von Gebhardt (1893). [For English translation cf. ANF, ix, 7-8. It has been the subject of numerous able articles in the theological journals since its publication in 1892.] (32) The Gospel of Philip: Mentioned and quoted by Epiphanius (Hær., xxvi, 13) as being in use among the Gnostics. Possibly it is the same as was in use among the Manicheans (see above 25, c). (33) The Gospel of the Simonites, or, as it was also called by themselves, The Book of the Four Corners and Hinges of the World: Mentioned in the Arabic Preface to the Council of Nicœa. (34) The Gospel according to the Syrians: Possibly identical with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (35) The Gospel of Tatian: Mentioned by Epiphanius (Hær., XLVI, i, 47, 4) as being used by the Encratites and by Catholic Christians in Syria. Being a compilation from the four Gospels, it was called also “The Diatessaron"; see Harmony of the Gospels; Tatian. (36) The Gospel of Thaddæus: Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree. The name may have been intended for that of the apostle Judas Thaddæus, or for that of one of the Seventy who, according to tradition, was sent to King Abgar of Edessa (see Abgar; and cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., i, iii). (37) The Gospel of Valentinus:228 Usually identified with the Gospel of Truth on the authority of Irenæus, who says that the Gospel of Truth was used by the Valentinians, and that it was very dissonant from the canonical Gospels.

II. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles:

This class of writings originated through the operation of the same causes that produced the apocryphal Gospels, though the heretical tendency in the Acts is generally more prominent. For this reason they were as much feared in the early Church as the apocryphal Gospels; and it appears from references in Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Augustine that they had great influence. Since they were often worked over for dogmatic purposes, criticism has to inquire into the antiquity and originality of the existing codices. Among those who manufactured apocryphal Acts one Lucius (or Leucius) Charinus, a Manichean, is especially mentioned. His collection is said to have comprised the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul. Of these a few fragments only are preserved in the original form, which were afterward revised to accord with catholic dogma; in an enlarged form the collection became known as the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, which, according to Photius, was used by the Manichean Agapios. It must not be overlooked that some of these revised Acts are of a very high antiquity; thus the Acts of Peter were in use in the second century and the Journeys of Thomas in the third century. A collection entitled the Acts of the Holy Apostles is mentioned by Greek chroniclers from the sixth century. Toward the end of the sixth century a Latin collection became known, ascribed to Abdias, the supposed bishop of Babylon. In its original form the collection comprised the “passions” of all the twelve apostles (including Paul instead of Matthias), in its revised form the “virtues” or “miracles” of Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, and Thomas, and the “passions” of Matthew, Bartholomew, Philip, the two Jameses, both Simons, and Jude, of the older collection. A third collection was in use in the Coptic Church, and is extant in the Ethiopic language as the Contest of the Apostles [best edition by E. A. W. Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles, 2 vols., London, 1899-1901]. There are also numerous Syriac recensions.

The most notable of these apocryphal Acts are (1) Acts of Peter and Paul, the oldest testimony for which is Eusebius, with possibly Clement of Alexandria; (2) Acts of Paul and Thecla, known to Tertullian, ascribed to a presbyter in Asia, and belonging to the first half of the second century; (3) Acts of Barnabas, Told by John Mark, which has another title in some Greek manuscripts, Journeys and Martyrdom of the Holy Barnabas the Apostle; (4) Acts of Philip, possessing high antiquity and having been much used in the literature of both branches of the early Church; (5) Acts of Philip in Greece, later than the last-mentioned; (6) Acts of Andrew, a very early composition; (7) Acts of Andrew and Matthew in the City of the Anthropophagi, much used by the Gnostics and Manicheans; (8) Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew, to be connected with the last-named as its continuation; (9) Acts of Thomas, also a work of high antiquity; (10) Consummation of Thomas, the completion of the story begun in the foregoing Acts of Thomas; (11) Martyrdom of Bartholomew; (12) Acts of Thaddeus (the Syriac reads “of Addas”), built upon the very old tradition of the exchange of letters between Abgar of Edessa and Christ; (13) Acts of John, likewise very old, and esteemed highly by Gnostics and Manicheans; the “History of Prochor” mentions the Acts of John, but (14) a History of John (in Syriac), and (15) Passion of John have no connection with Prochor; while (16) On the Life of John adds nothing to the last three. Besides the foregoing, there are many fragments of Acts, which do not call for mention. English translations of these apocryphal Acts will be found in ANF, viii, 477-564.

III. Apocryphal Epistles:

Besides the fictitious correspondence between Christ and Abgar (see Abgar), other alleged writings of Christ are known which belong to the realm of mythology (collected by Fabricius, i, 303-321; iii, 439, 511-512). There are letters from the Virgin Mary to Ignatius, and letters to Mary which are of a very late date (given in Fabricius, i, 834, 844, 851). Two letters of Peter to James are also known. From Col. iv, 16 it is learned that Paul wrote a letter to the Laodiceans which is lost; it is not to be wondered at that this lost letter soon found an apocryphal substitute, which was in circulation in Jerome’s time (De vir. ill., v), and was published in many languages (cf. Zahn, Kanon, ii, 566 sqq., 584-585; Zahn treats also [ii, 612 sqq.] of the spurious correspondence between Paul and Seneca). Since in I Cor. v, 9, Paul speaks of an earlier letter to the Church of Corinth (which has been lost), care was taken to substitute another letter to the Corinthians in place of the lost one. A Latin text recently discovered was published and discussed by Carrière and Berger (La Correspondance apocryphe de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891); cf. A. Harnack (TLZ, 1892, 2 sqq.), T. Zahn (TLB, 1892, 185 sqq., 193 sqq.), Bratke (TLZ, 1892, 585 sqq.).

IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses:

Although the names of a considerable number of apocryphal apocalypses are known, the texts or fragments of texts of only a few are extant (collected by Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphœ, Leipsic, 1866), viz.: (1) Apocalypse of John: Differed from the canonical book of the same name. (2) Apocalypse of Peter: Mentioned in the Muratorian Canon and by Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Eusebius, and others. A fragment of this apocalypse was recently discovered together with the Gospel of Peter (see I [31] above), and published at Paris in 1892 (cf. ANF, ix, 141 sqq.). (3) Ascension of Paul: Is based on II Cor. xii, 2-4, where Paul tells of being caught up into heaven. (4) Apocalypse of Paul: Spoken of by Augustine and Sozomen (cf. ANF, viii, 149 sqq.). (5) Apocalypse of Bartholomew: Extant only in fragments in a Coptic manuscript in the Paris library. (6) Apocalypse of Mary: Exists only in fragments of late manuscripts. (7) Apocalypse of Thomas: Mentioned in the Decretum Gelasii. (8) Apocalypse of Stephen: 229 Based on Acts vii, 55: said to have been in use among the Manicheans. For English translations, consult ANF, viii, 575-586; ix, 141-174.

(Rudolf Hofmann.)

Bibliography: Collections of Apocrypha: J. A. Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1703, vol. iii, 1743; J. C. Thilo, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Leipsic, 1832; W. Giles, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, 2 vols., London, 1852; W. Wright, Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament . . . from Syrian MSS., 1865; M. Bonnet, Supplementum codicis apocryphi, 2 vols., Paris, 1883-95 (of great value); M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota . . . Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments, in TS, ii, 3, and v, 1, Cambridge, 1893-97; E. Nestle, Novi Testamenti Grœci Supplementum, Berlin, 1896; ANF, viii-ix; Apocryphal New Testament, London, Boston, and New York, n. d. (out of print); E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen . . . in deutscher Uebersetzung und mit Einleitungen, Tübingen, 1904.

Collections of Gospels: C. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, Leipsic, 1876; G. Brunet, Les Évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1863; B. H. Cowper, Apocryphal Gospels and Documents Relating to Christ, London, 1870; Jos. Variot, Des Évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1878; A. Resch, Ausserkanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1892-97; E. Preuschen, Antilegomena. Die Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien, Giessen, 1901.

Collections of Apocryphal Acts: C. Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, revised ed. by Lipsius and Bonnet, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1891, 1898, 1903 (essential for texts); R. A. Lipsius, Die Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 4 vols., Brunswick, 1883-90 (exceedingly important); W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles from Syriac MSS., London, 1871; A. S. Lewis, Mythological Acts of the Apostles from an Arabic MS., ib. 1904.

Apocalypses: C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphœ, Leipsic, 1866.

Treatises covering the subject: A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, Leipsic, 1893 (exhaustive); J. Pons, Recherches sur les apocryphes du nouveau Testament, Montauban, 1850; R. Hofmann, Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen, ib. 1851; M. Nicolas, Études sur les évangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1866; S. Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels, London, 1874; B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, ib. 1888; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1888-92 (from the conservative standpoint); W. E. Barnes, Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels, ib. 1893 (clear and useful); G. Krüger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg, 1895, Eng. transl., New York, 1897.

On individual Gospels: W. Wright, Evangelium Thomœ, London, 1875; R. Reinsch, Die Pseudo-Evangelien von Jesu und Maria’s Kindheit in der romanischen und germanischen Litteratur, Halle, 1879: R. A. Lipsius, Die edessenische Abgar-Sage, Brunswick, 1880; F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, in TS, iv, 2, Cambridge, 1896; F. C. Conybeare, Protevangelium of James, in AJT, i (1897), 424 sqq.; Ragg, Italian Version of the Lost Apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, Oxford, 1905. On the Gospel of the Hebrews: E. B. Nicholson, Gospel According to the Hebrews, London, 1897; R. Handmann, Das Hebräer-Evangelium, Leipsic, 1888; G. Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, pp. 161-170, London, 1894. On the Logia Jesu: B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt Logia Jesu, Sayings of our Lord, London, 1897; A. Harnack, Ueber die jüngst entdeckten Sprüche Jesu, Freiburg, 1897; W. Lock and W. Sanday, Two Lectures on the Sayings of Jesus, London, 1897; C. Bruston, Les Paroles de Jésus récemment découvertes . . . et remarques sur le texte . . . de l’Évangile de Pierre, Paris, 1898; A. Jacoby, Ein neues Evangelienfragment, Strasburg, 1900; J. H. Ropes, Die Sprüche Jesu, Leipsic, 1896.

The Peter Fragments were issued, translated, or discussed by: J. R. Harris, London 1892; J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, ib. 1892; O. Von Gebhardt, Leipsic, 1893; A. Harnack, ib. 1893; A. Lods, in three works, Paris, 1892, 1893, 1895; A. Sabatier, ib. 1893; H. von Schubert, two works, Berlin, 1893, Eng. transl. of one, Edinburgh, 1893; D. Völter, Tübingen, 1893; T. Zahn, Leipsic, 1893; and C. Bruston, see above under Logia Jesu.

Apocryphal Acts: S. C. Malan, The Conflicts of the Holy Apostles, London, 1871; R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen der Petrussage, Kiel, 1872; C. Schlau, Die Acten des Paulus und der Thecla, Leipsic, 1877; T. Zahn, Acta Johannis, Erlangen, 1880; M. Bonnet, Acta Thomas, Leipsic, 1883; A. E. Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas. Critical Analysis of Acta Thomæ, London, 1905. On the Acts of Pilate: R. A. Lipsius, Pilatusakten, Kiel, 1886; C. Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum judicio quid lucis in Actis Pilati, Leipsic, 1855; Geo. Sluter, Acta Pilati, Shelbyville, Ind., 1879; W. O. Clough, Gesta Pilati, Indianapolis, 1880; J. R. Harris, Homeric Centones and the Acts of Pilate, London, 1889.

Other works: W. F. Rinck, Das Sendschreiben der Korinther an den Apostel Paulus, Heidelberg, 1823 (argues for genuineness), answered by C. Ullmann, Ueber den dritten Brief Pauli an die Korinther, ib. 1823; E. Dulaurier, Fragment des Révélations apocryphes de St. Barthélémy, Paris, 1835; A. Harnack, De Apellis Gnosi Monarchia, Leipsic, 1874.

« Apocatastasis Apocrisiarius Apollinaris, Claudius »





Advertisements



| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |