THE MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, as we have seen; but the fullest collections contain the following: 1 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i. -- iv. Maccabees. We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was sometimes included in MSS. of the Salomonic books, or, in complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon; and the Greek version of Enoch, although by some accident it has been excluded from the Greek Bible, on other grounds claims the attention of every Biblical student. There is also a long list of pseudepigrapha and other apocrypha which lie outside both the Hebrew and the Greek Canons, and of which in many cases only the titles have survived. The present chapter will be occupied by a brief examination of these non-canonical writings of the Greek Old Testament.

1.1 ESDRAS. In MSS. of the LXX. the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah appears under the title |Esdras b', Esdras a' being appropriated by another recension of the history of the Captivity and Return. The 'Greek Esdras' consists of an independent and somewhat free version of portions of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, broken by a long context which has no parallel in the Hebrew Bible.

Thus 1 Esdr. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv.1 -- xxxvi.2l; ii.1 -- 14 = Ezra i.; ii.15 -- 25 = Ezra iv.7 -- 24; iii.1 -- v.6 is original; v.7 -- 70 = Ezra ii.1 -- iv.5; vi., vii. = Ezra v., vi.; viii.1 -- ix.36 = Ezra vii.1 -- x.44; ix.37 -- 55 = Neh. vii.73^b -- viii.13^a. The Greek book ends abruptly, in a manner which suggests that something has been lost; cf. ix.55 kai episunechthesan with 2 Esdr. xviii.13 sunechthesan hoi archontes ktl. The student may compare the ending of the Second Gospel (Mc. xvi.8).

The context 1 Esdr. iii.1 -- v.6 is perhaps the most interesting of the contributions made by the Greek Bible to the legendary history of the Captivity and Return. We owe to it the immortal proverb Magna est veritas et praevalet (iv.41 ), and the story which forms the setting of the proverb is worthy of the occasion. But in its present form it is certainly unhistorical; Zerubbabel (iv.13) belonged to the age of Cyrus, and it was Cyrus and not Darius (iv.47 f.) who decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It has been suggested that |this story is perhaps the nucleus of the whole (book), round which the rest is grouped .| In the grouping chronological order has been to some extent set aside; the displacement of Ezra iv.7 -- 24 (= 1 Esdr. ii.15 -- 25) has thrown the sequence of events into confusion, and the scene is shifted from the court of Artaxerxes to that of Darius, and from Darius back again to Cyrus, with whose reign the history had started. Yet Josephus , attracted perhaps by the superiority of the Greek style, uses 1 Esdras in preference to the Greek version of the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, even embodying in his narrative the legend of Zerubbabel . He evades the difficulty arising out of the premature reference to Artaxerxes by substituting Cambyses . In the early Church the Greek Esdras was accepted without suspicion; cf. e.g. Clem. Alex. strom. i.21; Origen, in Joann. t. vi.1, in Jos. hom. ix.10; Cyprian, ep.74.9. Jerome, however (praef. in Ezr.), discarded the book, and modern editions of the Vulgate relegate it to an appendix where it appears as 3 Esdras, the titles 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras being given to the two parts of the canonical book Ezra-Nehemiah .

The relation of the two Greek recensions of Ezra to one another is a problem analogous to that which is presented by the two 'versions' of Daniel, and scarcely less perplexing. It has been stated with great care in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (i. p.759 ff.), by Mr H. St J. Thackeray. He distinguishes three views, (1) that 1 Esdras is a compilation from the LXX. version of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, (2) that it is based on an earlier Greek version of those books, and (3) that it is an independent translation of an earlier Hebrew text; and while refusing to regard any solution as final, he inclines to the second. The third has recently found a champion in Sir H. H. Howorth , who adds to it the suggestion that 1 Esdras is the true Septuagintal (i.e. the Alexandrian) version, whilst 2 Esdras is later, and probably that of Theodotion. Mr Thackeray is disposed to regard this contention as |so far correct that [1 Esdras] represents the first attempt to present the story of the Return in a Gr[eek] dress,| 2 Esdras being |a more accurate rendering of the Heb[rew]| which was |subsequently . . . required and . . . supplied by what is now called the LXX. version .|

2. WISDOM OF SOLOMON. The Greek title is Sophia Salomonos (Salomontos, Solomontos, Salomon). But the book was often cited as he Sophia, he panaretos Sophia, a name which it shared with Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus; see Lightfoot on Clem.1 Cor.55. In the Muratorian fragment it is described as |Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.| The Latin versions and fathers called the book Sapienta or Sophia Salomonis (Cyprian, O. L.), but also simply liber Sapientiae (Lactantius, Vulg.).

No other book in the Greek Bible is so manifestly Alexandrian in tone and style. Some early Christian writers attributed it to Philo (Hieron. praef. in libros Salomonis: |nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Iudaei Philonis affirmant|), and it has been ingeniously conjectured that this view found a place in the Greek archetype of the Muratorian fragment . But though Wisdom has strong points of likeness to the works of Philo, it is free from the allegorizing spirit of that writer, and its conception of the Logos is less developed than his . On the other hand it clearly belongs to a period when the Jewish scholars of Alexandria were abreast of the philosophic doctrines and the literary standards of their Greek contemporaries. The author is acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of the four cardinal virtues (c. viii.7 ei dikaiosunen agapa tis, hoi ponoi tautes eisin aretai; sophrosunen gar kai phronesin ekdidaskei, dikaiosunen kai andreian), and with the Platonic sense of hule (c. xi.17 ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hules; cf. Philo, de victim.13, de mund. opif.12). His ideas on the subject of preexistence (c. viii.20), of the relation of the body to the spirit (c. ix.15), of Wisdom as the soul of the world (vii.24), are doubtless due to the same source. His language is no less distinctly shaped upon Greek models; |no existing work represents perhaps more completely the style of composition which would be produced by the sophistic school of rhetoric ,| as it existed under the conditions of Greek life at Alexandria. This remark may be illustrated by the peculiar vocabulary of the book. Unusual words abound, e.g. akelidotos, ambrosios, exallos, zotikos, iobolos, kakomochthos, kinetikos, krustalloeides, homoiopathes, pantepiskopos, polumeres, protoplastos; agerochia, apaugasma, aporroia, eidechtheia, energeia, eudraneia, rhembasmos, sullogismos; metakirnan, metalleuein, prouphestanai . In some of these we can trace the influence of philosophical thought, in others the laboured effort of the writer to use words in harmony with the literary instincts of the age and place to which he belonged.

The object of the book is to protect Hellenistic Jews from the insidious influences of surrounding ungodliness and idolatry, but while its tone is apologetic and even polemical, the point of view is one which would commend itself to non-Jewish readers. The philosophical tendencies and the literary style of Wisdom favour the view that it is earlier than Philo, but not earlier than the middle of the second century B.C. As to the author, the words in which Origen dismissed the question of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews may be applied to this pre-Christian writing -- tis de ho grapsas . . . to men alethes theos oiden. It is the solitary survival from the wreck of the earlier works of the philosophical school of Alexandria which culminated in Philo, the contemporary of our Lord.

3. WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH. In cod. B the title of this book is simply Sophia Seirach , but codd. AC give the fuller and more accurate form Sophia Iesou huiou Seirach (Cf. C. L.27 paideian . . . echaraxa en to biblio touto Iesous huios Seirach ). Jerome had seen a Hebrew Sirach which shared with the canonical book the title of Proverbs (praef. in libros Salom.: |Hebraicum reperi . . . Parabolas mslym praenotatum|). The later name, Ecclesiasticus, which appears in Cyprian (e.g. testim. ii.1 |apud Salomonem . . . in Ecclesiastico|), marks the book as the most important or the most popular of the libri ecclesiastici -- the books which the Church used for the purpose of instruction, although they were not included in the Jewish canon.

Cf. Rufin. in symb.38: |alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt, id est, Sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est.|

The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach was the work of a Palestinian (c. L.27 Iesous ho Ierosolumeites), and written in Hebrew; the Greek version was made by the grandson of the writer during a visit to Alexandria (prolog., ll.5, 18 ff.). This visit is said to have begun en to ogdoo kai triakosto etei epi tou Euergetou basileos -- words which, simple as they seem, are involved in a double ambiguity, since there were two Ptolemies who bore the name Euergetes, and it is not clear whether the 38th year is to be reckoned from the commencement of the reign of Euergetes or from some other point of departure. But, assuming that the Euergetes intended is Euergetes II., i.e. Physcon , and that the translator is counting from the time when Physcon was associated in the government with his brother and predecessor Philometor, we arrive at B.C.132 as the terminus a quo of the Greek version, and the original may have been composed some fifty years earlier.

Fragments of the original are preserved in Rabbinic literature. These are in the dialect of the Talmud; but recent discoveries have brought to light a large part of the book in classical Hebrew. A comparison of the Greek version with the Hebrew text, so far as it has been printed, reveals considerable differences, especially when the Greek text employed is that of cod. B, which was unfortunately chosen for the purpose by the Oxford editors of the Hebrew fragments. It must be remembered that these fragments come from a MS. of the 11th or 12th century, which may present a corrupt form of the Hebrew text; and on the other hand, that there are considerable variations in the Greek text of Sirach, cod. B differing widely from the majority of the MSS. Much remains to be done before the text of Sirach can be settled with any confidence. Meanwhile Professor Margoliouth has thrown doubt upon the originality of the Hebrew fragments, which he regards as belonging to an eleventh century version made from the Syriac with the help of a Persian translation from the Greek . At present few experts accept this theory, but the question must perhaps be regarded as sub iudice.

In all the known MSS. of the Greek Sirach , there is a remarkable disturbance of the sequence. They pass from c. xxx.34 to c. xxxiii.13 b, returning to the omitted passage after xxxvi.16 a. The error seems to have arisen from a transposition in the common archetype of the pairs of leaves on which these two nearly equal sections were severally written -- a fact which is specially instructive in view of the large divergences in the Greek MSS. to which reference has been made. The true order is preserved in the Old Latin , Syriac, and Armenian versions.

4. JUDITH (Ioudeith, -dith, -deth, = yhvdyt, cf. Gen. xxvi.34, where the same spellings are found in the cursives, though the uncials exhibit Ioudein, Ioudin, an historical romance, of which the scene is laid in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c. i.2). The date of its composition is uncertain. A terminus ad quem is provided by the fact that Clement of Rome knew the story (1 Cor.55 Ioudith he makaria . . . paredoken Kurios Olophernen en cheiri theleias) ; and the name of Judith's enemy has suggested a terminus a quo, for Olophernes appears to be a softened form of Orophernes, the name of a Cappadocian king, c. B.C.158, who may have been regarded as an enemy of the Jews . The religious attitude of the author of Judith is that of the devout Pharisee (cf. e.g. viii.6, x.2 ff., xi.13, xii.7), and the work may have been a fruit of the patriotic feeling called forth by the Maccabean wars.

Origen's Jewish teachers knew nothing of a Semitic original (cf. ad African.13: Ebraioi to Tobia ou chrontai oude te Ioudeth, oude gar echousin auta kai en apokruphois Ebraisti, hos ap' auton mathontes egnokamen). Jerome, on the other hand, not only says expressly (praef. in Iudith): |apud Hebraeos liber Iudith inter apocrypha (v.l. hagiographa) legitur,| but he produced a version or paraphrase from an Aramaic source (|ea quae intellegentia integra ex verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui, Latinis expressi|) . The relation of this Aramaic text to the original of the Greek book remains uncertain.

The Greek Judith is said by Fritzsche to exist in three recensions: (1) that of the Uncials and the majority of the cursives, (2) that of codd.19, 108, and (3) that which is represented by cod.58, and is in general agreement with the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which are based upon a Greek text.

5. TOBIT (Tobeit (-bit, -bet), Tobeith, Tobias, liber Tobiae, utriusque Tobiae), a tale of family life, the scene of which is laid at Nineveh and Ecbatana, the hero being an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, who had been carried into captivity by Shalmanezer. The book appears to have been written for Jewish readers, and in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Jews of Origen's time, however, refused to recognise its authority (Orig. de orat.14 te de tou Tobet biblo antilegousin hoi ek peritomes, hos me endiatheko), or even to include it among their apocrypha (see above, under JUDITH); but it was accepted by the Church (ep. ad African.1. c. chrontai to Tobia hai ekklesiai), and there is abundant evidence of its popularity among Christians (cf. Ps. Clem.2 Cor.16.4, Polyc. ad Smyrn.10.2, Clem. Alex. strom. ii.23, vi.12, Orig. de orat.11, in Rom. viii.11, c. Cels. v.19, Cypr. testim. iii.1, 6, 62). Gnostics shared this feeling with Catholics; the Ophites placed Tobit among their prophetical books (Iren. i.30.11).

Jerome translated Tobit as he translated Judith, from a 'Chaldee,' i.e. Aramaic, copy, but with such haste that the whole was completed in a single day (praef. in Tob. |exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad latinum stylum tradam . . . feci satis desiderio vestro . . . et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui |). Thus, as in the case of Judith, we have two Latin versions, the Old Latin, based upon the Greek, and Jerome's rough and ready version of the Aramaic.

The Greek text itself exists in two principal recensions, represented by the two great uncials B and '. In c. vi.9 -- xiii.18 Fritzsche adds a third text supplied by the cursives 44, 106, 107 . The relation of the two principal texts to each other has recently been discussed by Nestle (Septuagintastudien, iii.) and by J. Rendel Harris (in the American Journal of Theology, iii. p.541 ff.). Both, though on different grounds, give preference to the text of '. Harris, however, points out that while ' is probably nearer to the original Hebrew, B may exhibit the more trustworthy text of the Alexandrian version of the book.

6. BARUCH and THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH Barouch, Epistole Ieremiou, [prophetia] Baruch) were regarded by the Church as adjuncts of Jeremiah, much in the same way as Susanna and Bel were attached to Daniel. Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books; they are cited as 'Jeremiah' (Iren. v.35.1, Tert. scorp.8, Clem. Alex. paed i.10, Cypr. testim. ii.6); with Lamentations they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy (Athan. ep.39 Ieremias kai sun auto Barouch, Threnoi, Ipistole, Cyril. Hier. catech. iv.33 Ieremiou meta Barouch kai Threnon kai Epistoles ). In some Greek MSS. the Epistle follows Baruch without break, and in the Latin and English Bibles it forms the sixth and last chapter of that book.

The Epistle (anrigraphon epistoles hes apesteilen Ieremias pros tous achthesomenous [v.1. apachthentas] aichmalotous eis Babulona) seems to have been suggested by Jer. xxxvi. (xxix.) 1 (cf.2 Kings xxv.20 ff.). It is generally recognised that this little work was written in Greek by a Hellenist who was perhaps anterior to the writer of 2 Maccabees (cf.2 Macc. ii.1 ff.) .

The problem presented by Baruch is less simple. This book is evidently a complex work consisting of two main sections (1. i. -- iii.8, iii.9 -- v.9) , each of which may be subdivided (i.1 -- 14, historical preface; i.15 -- iii.8, confession and prayer; iii.9 -- iv.4, exhortation; iv.5 -- v.9, encouragement). Of these subsections the first two shew traces of a Hebrew original; cf. e.g. i.10 manna = mnchh ii.3 anthropon = 'ys, iii.4 ton tethnekoton = mty (for mty) ; the third has been held to rest on an Aramaic document, whilst the fourth is manifestly Hellenistic.

An investigation by Professor Ryle and Dr James into the relation between the Greek version of the Psalms of Solomon and the Greek Baruch, led them to the conclusion that Baruch was reduced to its present form after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; and the tone of Bar. iv.30 seems certainly to point to that period. On the other hand it is difficult to understand the unhesitating acceptance of the book by Christian writers from Athenagoras (suppl.9) until the time of Jerome, and its practical inclusion in the canon, if the Greek version in its present form proceeded from a Palestinian Jew, and was the work of the last quarter of the first century A.D. As to its use by the Jews there are contradictory statements in early Christian writers, for while the Apostolical Constitutions inform us that the Jews read Baruch publicly on the Day of Atonement, Jerome says expressly that they neither read it nor had it in their possession, and his statement is confirmed by Epiphanius.

Const. Ap. v.20 kai gar kai nu? dekate tou menos Garpiaiou sunathroizomenoi tous Threnous Ieremiou anaginoskousin . . . kai ton Barouch. Hieron. praef. comm. in Ierem. |vulgo edition; Septuaginta copulatur, nec habetur apud Hebraeos|; praef. vers. Ierem. |apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur.| Epiph. de mens. et pond.5 ou keintai hai epistolai [Barouch kai Ieremiou] par Ebraiois.

7. BOOKS OF MACCABEES (Makkabaion a', b', g', d', Machabaeorum libri; ta Makkabaika, Hippol. in Dan. iv.3; Orig. ap. Eus. H. E. vi.25). The four books differ widely in origin, character, and literary value; the bond which unites them is merely their common connexion with the events of the age which produced the heroes of the Hasmonaean or Maccabean family.

1 MACCABEES. This book seems to have been used by Josephus (ant. xii.6.1 sqq.), but it is doubtful whether he was acquainted with its Greek form. On the other hand, the Greek 1 Macc. was undoubtedly known to the Christian school of Alexandria; cf. Clem. Alex. strom. i. § 123 to ton Makkabaikon Origen ap. Eus. l.c. ta Makkabaika haper epigegraptai Sarbeth sabanaiel (v.l. S. sabane el). Whatever may be the meaning of this title , it is clearly Semitic, and may be taken as evidence that the book was circulated in a Semitic original. Jerome appears to have seen a copy of this Hebrew or Aramaic text (prol. gal. |Maccabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum repperi|), but it has long disappeared , and the book is now extant only in versions. The Latin and Syriac versions are based upon the Greek; the Old Latin exists in two recensions, one of which has taken its place in the Latin Bible, whilst the other is preserved in a St Germain's and a Madrid MS.; a Lyons MS. gives a text in which the two are mixed .

The history of 1 Macc. covers about 40 years (B.C.175 -- 132). There are indications that the writer was removed by at least a generation from the end of his period (cf. c. xiii.30, xvi.23 f.). He was doubtless a Palestinian Jew, but his work would soon have found its way to Alexandria, and if it had not already been translated into Greek, it doubtless received its Greek dress there shortly after its arrival.

2 MACCABEES. The existence of a book bearing this title is implied by Hippolytus, who quotes 1 Macc. with the formula en te prote biblo ton Makkabaikon anagegraptai, and by Origen, if we may trust the Latin interpretation (in ep. ad Rom., t. viii.1 |in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est|); the title itself occurs in Eus. praef. ev. viii.9 (he deutera ton Makkabaion). But the evidence goes further back. Philo shews some knowledge of the book in Quod omnis probus liber, § 13, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews has a clear reminiscence of its Greek (Heb. xi.31 alloi de etumpanisthesan ktl., cf.2 Macc. vi.19, 30).

The writer is described by Clement of Alexandria (strom. v.14) as ho suntaxamenos ten ton Makkabaikon epitomen. This is precisely what he claims to do (c. ii.23 hupo Iasonos tou Kurenaiou dedelomena dia pente biblion, peirasometha di henos suntagmatos epitemein). The work of the Cyrenian has perished, whilst the Alexandrian epitome survives. For Alexandrian the epitomist probably was; |the characteristics of the style and language are essentially Alexandrian . . . the form of the allusion to Jason shews clearly that the compiler was not his fellow countryman .| |The style is extremely uneven; at times it is elaborately ornate (iii.15 -- 39, v.20, vi.12 -- 16, 23 -- 28, vii. &c.); and again, it is so rude and broken as to seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished composition| (xiii.19 -- 26); indeed it is difficult to believe that such a passage as the one last cited can have been intended to go forth in its present form. That the work never had a Semitic original was apparent to Jerome (prol. gal. |secundus Graecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque phrasei probari potest|). The vocabulary is extraordinarily rich in words of the later literary Greek, and the book betrays scarcely any disposition to Hebraise .

The second book of Maccabees presents a striking contrast to the first. Covering a part of the same period (B.C.175 -- 160), it deals with the events in a manner wholly different. In 1 Maccabees we have a plain and usually trustworthy history; in 2 Maccabees a partly independent but rhetorical and inaccurate and to some extent mythical panegyric of the patriotic revolt .

3 MACCABEES. A third book of Makkabaika finds a place in some Eastern lists (can. Apost., Niceph. stichom.). A Greek book under that title is found in codd. AV and a few cursives . There is a Syriac version, but no Latin, nor is the book mentioned in any Western list, although the stichometry of Cod. Claromontanus implies a knowledge of its existence, for it mentions a fourth book. Similarly cod. ' passes from the first book to the fourth, whether the omission of the second and third is due to the deliberate judgement of the scribe or to his want of an archetype.

A more exact description of 3 Maccabees would be that which it seems to have borne in some circles -- the Ptolemaica . The story belongs to the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (B.C.222 -- 205), and the scene is laid at Alexandria. The king, infuriated by the refusal of the Jerusalem priesthood to admit him to the Holy of Holies, returns to Egypt with the intention of avenging himself on the Alexandrian Jews; but by the interposition of Providence his plans are defeated, and he becomes, like Darius in Daniel and Artaxerxes in Esther, the patron of the people he had purposed to destroy.

There are reasons for believing that this romance rests upon some historical basis. |The author . . . evidently has good knowledge of the king and his history . . . the feast kept by the Egyptian Jews at a fixed date [c. vii.11] cannot be an invention . . . that Philopator in some way injured the condition of the Jews, and that they were concerned in the insurrection of the nation, seems very probable .| Moreover Josephus has a somewhat similar tale drawn from another source, and connected with another reign (c. Ap. ii.5). The present book is doubtless Alexandrian, and of relatively late origin, as its inflated style, |loaded with rhetorical ornament ,| sufficiently testifies. Some critics (Ewald, Hausrath, Reuss ) would place it in the reign of Caligula, but the knowledge of earlier, Alexandrian life which it displays points to an earlier date, perhaps the first century B.C.

4 MACCABEES. According to Eusebius and Jerome this book was the work of Josephus ,

Eus. H. E., iii.10 peponetai de kai allo ouk agennes spoudasma to andri (sc. Iosepo) peri autokratpros logismou, ho tines Makkabaikon epegrapsan to tous agonas ton en tois houto kaloumenois Makkabaikois sungrammasin huper tes eis to theion eusebeias andrisamenon Ebraion periechein. Hieron. de virr. ill.13 |alius quoque libro eius qui inscribitur peri autokratoros logismou valde elegans habetur, in quo et Maccabeorum digesta martyria| (cf. c. Pelag. ii.5).

The book is a philosophical treatise upon the question, ei autodespotos estin ton pathon ho eusebes logismos But the greater part of it is occupied by a rhetorical panegyric upon the Jewish martyrs, Eleazar, and the seven brothers and their mother, who perished in the Maccabean troubles. This portion appears to be based on 2 Macc. vi.18 -- vii.42, which it amplifies with an extraordinary wealth of language and a terribly realistic picture of the martyrs' sufferings. The rhetoric of the writer, however, is subordinated to his passion for religious philosophy. In philosophy he is a pupil of the Stoics; like the author of the Wisdom of Solomon he holds fast by the doctrine of the four cardinal Virtues (i.18 tes de sophias eideai kathistasin phronesis kai dikaiosune kai andria kai sophrosune and he sternly demands that the pathe shall be kept under restraint by the power of Reason. In religion he is a legalist with Pharisaic tendencies; he believes in future punishment (ix.9, xiii.15), in the eternal life which awaits the righteous (xv.3, xvii.5, xviii.23), and in the atonement for sin which is made by voluntary sacrifice (vi.29, xxii.22).

The style of 4 Macc. abounds in false ornament and laboured periods. But on the whole it is |truly Greek ,| and approaches nearer than that of any other book in the Greek Bible to the models of Hellenic philosophy and rhetoric. It does not, however, resemble the style of Josephus, and is more probably a product of Alexandrian Judaism during the century before the fall of Jerusalem.

8. To the books of the Hebrew canon (ta endiatheka, ta eikosiduo) and the 'external' books (ta exo), which on the authority of Jerome the reformed Churches of the West have been accustomed to call the Apocrypha, some of the ancient lists add certain apocrypha properly so named. Thus the catalogue of the 'Sixty Books,' after reciting the canonical books of the O. and N. Testaments, and ta peri (leg. pera) touton exo (the two Wisdoms, 1 -- 4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit), continues: Kai hosa apokrupha; Adam, Henoch, Lamech, Patriarchai, Proseuche Ioseph, Eldad, Diatheke Mouseos, Analepsis Mouseos, Psalmoi Solomontos, Eliou apokalupsis, Esaiou horasis, Sophoniou apokalupsis, Zachariou apokalupsis, Esdra apokalupsis. The Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis and the Stichometry of Nicephorus count among the apokrupha tes palaias, together with certain of the above, Abraam . . . Barouch, Habbakoum, Ezekiel, kai Daniel, pseudepigrapha . Ebed Jesu mentions also a book called Traditions of the Elders, the History of Asenath, and even the Fables of Aesop disguised under the title Proverbs of Josephus. Besides these writings the following are censured in the Gelasian notitia librorum apocryphorum: Liber de filiabus Adae Leptogenesis, Poenitentia Adae, Liber de Vegia nomine gigante, qui post diluvium cum dracone . . . pugnasse perhibetur, Testamentum Iob, Poenitentia Iambre et Mambre, Solomonis interdictio.

Though the great majority of these writings at one time existed in Greek, they were not admitted into collections of canonical books. A partial exception was made in favour of the PSALMS OF SOLOMON. This book is mentioned among the antilegomena of the O.T. in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis. An earlier authority, the compiler of the catalogue at the beginning of Codex Alexandrinus, allows it a place in his list, although after the final summary of the books of the Old and New Testaments . If the Codex itself contained these Psalms, they have perished together with a portion of Ps. Clem. ad Cor. ii., the book which in the list immediately precedes them. It has been conjectured that they once had a place in Cod. Sinaiticus, which like Cod. A has lost some leaves at the end of the N.T. Their absence from the other great uncials and from the earlier cursives may be due to the influence of the Laodicean canon (lix.), hoti ou dei idiotikous psalmous legesthai en te ekklesia oude akanonista biblia, alla mona ta kanonika tes palaias kai kaines diathekes. Happily the Psalms survived in private collections, and find a place in a few relatively late cursives of the poetical and the Sapiential books of the O.T., where they follow the Davidic Psalter or take their place among the writings attributed to Solomon .

The Psalms of Solomon are shewn by their teaching and spirit to be the work of the Pharisaic school, and internal evidence connects them with the age of Pompey, whose death appears to be described in Ps. ii.30 ff. The question of the date of the Greek version turns upon the nature of the relation which exists between the Greek Psalms and the Greek Book of Baruch. Bishop Ryle and Dr James, who regard Baruch iv.36 -- v.9 (Greek) as based on the Greek of Ps. Sol. xi., are disposed to assign the version of the Psalms to the last decade of the first century B.C. . They observe that the Messianic passages contain |no trace of Christian influence at work.| On the other hand there are interesting coincidences between the Greek phraseology of the Psalter and that of the Magnificat and other Lucan canticles .

One other apocryphon of the Greek Old Testament claims attention here. The BOOK OF ENOCH has since 1838 been in the hands of scholars in the form of an Ethiopic version based upon the Greek. But until 1892 the Greek version was known only through a few fragments -- the verse quoted by St Jude (cf.14 f.), a brief tachygraphic extract in cod. Vat. gr.1809, published in facsimile by Mai (patr. nov. biblioth. ii.), and deciphered by Gildemeister (ZDMG., 1855, p.622 ff.), and the excerpts in the Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus . But in 1886 a small vellum book was found in a Christian grave in Akhmîm (Panopolis), in Upper Egypt, ee which contained inter alia the first thirty-two chapters of Enoch in Greek -- nearly the whole of the first section of the book. This large fragment was published by M. Bouriant in the ninth volume of Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique Française au Caire (Paris, 1^er fasc.1892; 3^e fasc.1893).

The newly recovered Greek belongs to the oldest part of Enoch, which may be regarded as in the main a Palestinian work of the second century B.C. . The Greek version is the parent of the Ethiopic, and of pre-Christian date, since it was in the hands of St Jude. Thus it possesses a strong claim upon the attention of the student of Biblical Greek, while the book itself possesses an almost unique value as an exposition of Jewish eschatology.

The Greek version of Enoch seems to have been circulated in the ancient Church; cf. Barn.4.16; Clem. Alex. ecl. proph.2; Orig. de princ. i.3.3, iv.35, hom. in Num.28.2. The book was not accepted by authority (Orig. c. Cels. v.54 en ta?s ekklesiais ou panu pheretai hos theia ta epigegrammena tou Henoch biblia: in Ioann. t. vi.25 ei to philon paradechesthai hos hagion to biblia. Hieron. de virr. ill.4 |apocryphus est|), but opinion was divided, and Tertullian was prepared to admit the claims of a writing which had been quoted in a Catholic Epistle (de cult. faem. i.3 |scio scripturam Enoch . . . non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Iudaicum admittitur . . . a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertineat ad nos . . . eo accedit quod E. apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet).| In the end, however, it appears to have been discredited both in East and West, and, if we may judge by the almost total disappearance of the Greek version, it was rarely copied by Catholics even for private study. A mere chance has thrown into our hands an excerpt made in the eighth or ninth century, and it is significant that in the Akhmîm book Enoch is found in company with fragments of a pseudonymous Gospel and Apocalypse .

LITERATURE of the non-canonical Books .

The Variorum Apocrypha, edited by C. J. Ball (London, 1892).

1 ESDRAS. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, §§ 363 -- 4; König, Einleitung, p.146; Dähne, Gesch. Darstellung, iii. p.116 ff.; Nestle, Marginalien, p.23 f.; Bissell, Apocrypha of the O. T., p.62 ff.; H. St J. Thackeray, art.1 Esdras in Hastings' D. B., i.; Schürer^3, iii. p.326 ff. ; Büchler, das apokr. Ezra-Buchs (MGWJ., 1897). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, t. v.; Fritzsche, libri apocr. V. T. Gr., pp. viii. -- x., 1 -- 30; Lagarde, libr. V. T. canon., p. i. (Lucianic); O. T. in Greek, ii. (text of B, with variants of A); W. J. Moulton, über die Überlieferung u. d. textkrit. Werth des dritten Ezra-Buchs, ZATW., 1899, 2, 1900, I. Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch z. d. Apokr., i.; Lupton, in Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, i.; Guthe, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.1 ff.

WISDOM OF SOLOMON. Fabricius-Harles, iii.727. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch, §§ 378 -- 382; König, Einleitung, p.146; Dähne, Darstellung, ii. p.152 ff.; Westcott, in Smith's D. B. iii. p.1778 ff.; Drummond, Philo Judaeus, i. p.177 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, libr. apocr. V. T. Gr., pp. xxiv. f., 522 ff.; O. T. in Greek, ii. p.604 ff. (text of B, variants of 'AC). Commentaries: Bauermeister, comm. in Sap. Sol. (1828); Grimm, exeg. Handbuch, vi.; Reusch, observationes Criticae in libr: Sapientiae (Friburg, 1858); Deane, the Book of Wisdom (Oxf., 1881); Farrar, in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.476 ff. On the Latin version see Thielmann, die lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit (Leipzig, 1872).

WISDOM OF THE SON OF SIRACH. Fabricius-Harles, iii.718; De Wette-Schrader, § 383 ff.; König, p.145. Westcott and Margoliouth, Ecclesiasticus in Smith's D. B.^2 i.841; Schürer^3, iii. p.157 ff. (where a full list of recent monographs will be found). Text with apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche; 0. T. in Greek, ii. (text of B, variants of 'AC); cf. J. K. Zenner, Ecclesiasticus nach cod. Vat.346 (Z. K. Th., 1895). Bretschneider, liber Iesu Siracidae Gr., Ratisbon, 1806. Cf. Hatch, Essays, p.296 ff. Nestle, Marginalien (1893), p.48 ff. Klostermann, Analecta, p.26 f. Commentaries: Bretschneider (ut supra); Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, v.; Edersheim in Speaker's Comm., Apocr. ii.; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.230 ff.

On the newly discovered Hebrew text with relation to the versions see Cowley and Neubauer, The original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1897; Smend, das hebr. Fragment der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 1897; Halévy, Étude sur la partie du texte hébreu de l'Ecclésiastique (Paris, 1897); Schlatter, das neu gefundene hebr. Stück des Sirach (Güterslob, 1897), I. Lévi, L'Eccelésiastique, Paris, 1898, 1901; C. Taylor, in JQR., 1898; D. S. Margoliouth, The origin of the 'Original Hebrew' of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford, 1899; S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, Cambridge, 1899; S. Schechter, in JQR. and Cr. R., Oct.1899; various articles in Exp. Times, 1899; A. A. Bevan in JThSt., Oct.1899; H. Herkenne, De Veteris Latinae Ecclesiastici capp. i -- xliii (Leipzig, 1899); E. Nestle in Hastings, D. B. iv.539 ff.

JUDITH. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p.736; De Wette-Schrader, § 373 ff.; König, p.145 f.; Nestle, Marginalien, p.43 ff.; Westcott-Fuller in Smith's D. B.^2 1. ii. p.1850 ff.; F. C. Porter in Hastings' D. B. ii. p.822 ff.; Schürer^3 iii. p.167. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, p. xviii f., 165 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (text of B, variants of 'A). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, ii.; Wolff, das Buch Judith . . . erklärt (Leipzig, 1861); Scholz, Commentar zum B. Judith (1887, 1896); cf. Ball in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Löhr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.147 ff.

TOBIT. Fabricius-Harles, iii.738; De Wette-Schrader, § 375 ff.; König, p.145 f.; Westcott in Smith's D. B. iii. p.1523; Schürer^3, iii. p.174. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.: Fritzsche, pp. xvi ff., 108 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, ii. (texts of B and ', with variants of A); Reusch, libellus Tobit e cod. Sin. editus (Bonn, 1870); Neubauer, the Book of Tobit: a Chaldee text (Oxford, 1878). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg Handbuch, Apokr., ii.; Reusch, das Buch Tobias übersetzt u. erk1ärt (Friburg, 1857); Sengelmann, das Buch Tobits erklärt (Hamburg, 1857); Gutberlet, das Buch Tobias übersetzt u. erklärt (Munster, 1877); Scholz, Commentar z. Buche Tobias (1889); Rosenmann, Studien z. Buche Tobit (Berlin, 1894); J. M. Fuller in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., i.; Löhr, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.135 ff. Cf. E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien iii. (Stuttgart, 1899); J. R. Harris in American Journal of Theology, July, 1899.

BARUCH and EPISTLE. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p.734 f.; De Wette-Schrader, § 389 ff.; König, p.485 f.; Westcott-Ryle, in Smith's D. B.^2 i. p.359 ff.; J. T. Marshall, in Hastings' D. B. i. p.249 ff. ii. p.579 ff.; Schürer^3, iii. p.338 ff.; A. A. Bevan, in Encycl. Biblica, i.492 ff. Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v.; Fritzsche, pp. xv f., 93 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text of B, with variants of AQG). Commentaries: Fritzsche, exeg. Handbuch, Apokr., i.; Reusch, Erklärung des Buchs Baruch (Freiburg, 1853); Hävernick, de libro Baruch (Königsberg, 1861); Kneucker, das Buch Baruch (Leipzig, 1879); E. H. Gifford in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii.; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.213 ff.

1 -- 4 MACCABEES. Fabricius-Harles, iii. p.745 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, § 365 ff.; König, p.482 ff.; Westcott in Smith's D. B.^1 ii. p.170 ff.; Schürer^3, iii. pp.139 ff., 359 ff., 393 ff.; Rosenthal, das erste Makkabäerbuch (Leipzig, 1867); Willrich, Juden u. Griechen vor der makkab. Erhebung (1895); Freudenthal, die Fl. Josephus beigelegte Schrift. (Breslau, 1869); Wolscht, de Ps. Josephi oratione . . . (Marburg, 1881). Text and apparatus: Holmes and Parsons, v. (books i. -- iii.); Fritzsche, pp. xix ff., 203 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii. (text of A with variants of 'V in books i. and iv. and V in ii., iii.). Commentaries: Keil, Komm. über die Bücher der Makk. (Leipzig, 1875) ; Bensly-Barnes, 4 Maccabees in Syriac (Cambridge, 1895) ; Grimm in Fritzsche's exeg. Handbuch, Apokr., iii., iv.; Bissell, in Lange-Schaff's Comm.; G. Rawlinson in Speaker's Comm., Apocr., ii. (books i. -- ii.); Fairweather and Black, 1 Maccabees (Cambridge, 1897); Kautzsch and Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen, p.24 ff.

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. The student will find fuller information on this subject in Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus V. T. (Hamburg, 1722): Herzog-Plitt, xii. p.341 ff. (art. by Dillmann on Pseudepigrapha des A. T.); Deane, Pseudepigrapha (Edinburgh, 1891); J. E. H. Thomson, Books which influenced our Lord and His Apostles (Edinburgh, 1891); Smith's and Hastings' Bible Dictionaries; Schürer^3, iii. pp.150 ff., 190 ff.; the works of Credner and Zahn; M. R. James, Testament of Abraham in Texts and Studies (II. ii. p.7 ff.); Encyclopaedia Biblica, artt. Apocalyptic Literature and Apocrypha (i.213 -- 58). For the literature of the several writings he may refer to Strack, Einleitung, p.230 ff. In Kautzsch's Apokr. u. Pseudepigraphen the following O. T. pseudepigrapha are included: Martyrdom of Isaiah (Beer), Sibylline Oracles, iii. -- v., and prooem. (Blass), Ascension of Moses (Clemen), Apocalypse of Moses (Fuchs), Apocalypse of Esdras (Gunkel), Testament of Naphtali, Heb. (Kautzsch), Book of Jubilees (Littmann), Apocalypse of Baruch (Ryssel), Testaments of XII Patriarchs (Schnapp). On the eschatology of this literature see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian (London, 1899).

PSALMS OF SOLOMON. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V.T., i. p.914 ff.; Fritzsche, libr. apocr. V. T. gr., pp. xxv ff., 569 ff.; Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1891); O. v. Gebhardt, die Psalmen Salomo's (Leipzig, 1895); Old Testament in Greek^2 (Cambridge, 1899 ). Ryle and James' edition is specially valuable for its full Introduction, and Gebhardt's for its investigation into the pedigree and relative value of the MSS. On the date see Frankenberg, die Datierung den Psalmen Salomos (Giessen, 1896). An introduction and German version by Dr R. Kittel will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p.127 ff.

BOOK OF ENOCH. Laurence, Libri Enoch versio aethiopica (Oxford, 1838); Dillmann, Liber Henoch aethiopice (Leipzig, 1851); Bouriant, Fragments du texte grec du livre d'Énoch . . . in Mémoires, &c. (see above); Lods, le livre d'Énoch (Paris, 1892); Dillmann, über den neugefundenen gr. Text des Henoch-Buches (Berlin, 1892); Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1893), The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1906), and art. in Hastings' D. B. i. p.705 ff.; Old Testament in Greek, iii.^2 (Cambridge, 1899). For a fragment of a Latin version see James, Apocr. anecdota in Texts and Studies, ii.3, p.146 ff. An introduction and German version by Dr G. Beer will be found in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, p.217 ff.