2. Use of the Ai'ocryi'ha and its relation TO THE Canon.— (a) In Hellenistic Juilaism.— The a'' books are found in all MSS of the LXX, scattered among the books of the Heb. Canon without discrimination. These MSS are, indeed, all of Christian origin, and some of tliera even contain Christian songs; but, apart from these, they undoubtedly represent the O'l which was current among the Gr. Jews and used in Gr. synagogues in the apostolic and early post-apostolic age. The additions to the Heb. Canon are not oulj' of Jewish origin, but are, as a whole, books which would interest Gr. Jews, but would not specially interest Christians, since the projilietic element in them is consjucuously small. The addition of these books by Christians would be inexplicable. The preservation of this longer OT by Christians only, is naturally explained by the fact that soon after 70 A.D. Hel. Judaism in the di-stinct sense ceased to exist, giving place either 'o rabbinical Judaism or to Christianity ; so that the earlier diflerence regarding the limits of sacred Scriptures between I'al. and Alex. Jews survived only as a diU'erence between Jews and Christians.
We must not, however, conclude that the A. had been in the strict sense canonized by Alex. Judaism. Their place among Scriptures is rather due, in part, to the supreme dignity of the Law ; in part to the broad view of inspiration current among Hellenists. In a more exclusive way than in later Pal. Judaism, the Pent, was to Alexandrians the sacred Scripture, the Canon by pre-eminence. It was such to Philo. In this respect the Alexandrians perhaps remained at the standpoint of the earlier Palestinians of the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. When Alex. Judaism was founded, the Law was the Canon of Judaism. The work of the 70 concerned it alone (Aristeas). The tr. of the other books into Greek iu Ejjypt went on, in part, side by side with the formation of the 2nd and 3rd Canons in Pal. That the suc- ceeding translators disregarded the Pal. distinc- tion of Prophets and Hagiographa, and aiTariged the books, after the Law, toj>ically, though in no fixed order, indicates their dill'erent view of these books. The relatively freer tr. points in the same direction ; and this freedom passes over by natural degrees into the incorporation of explana- tory' and ulustrative additions of less or greater extent. For this procedure the Pal. translators of OT into Aram, (largumim) had perhaps already set the example. That, finallv, Sir and Wis should be put in connexion with the Solomonic books, making, with Ps and Job, a volume of poelrv, or that, in connexion with Est, Jth and To sliould be inserted, cannot seem strange. This was mailc easier by the Hel. view of inspiration. Whili- Palestinians inclined to limit inspiration to tlii! age of the projdiets, long ended, the AlexandriaiiH regarded the divine spirit as stUI active, and viewed as inspiration the experience of the thinker and writer in moments oi special clearness of insight and exaltation of feeling.
Against the evidence that the LXX conlainc<l a** books, Philo's silence is inconclusive. I'liilo:" text is the Pent. It is true that he cites none of the A., hut in the prophetic Canon he pa.sses by Ezk and all the minor prophets except Hos and Zee; and of the Hagiographa, except I's, he makes almost no use, citing Pr twice. Job and Ch once, and Dn and the live NIegilloth not at all.
(6) Jn I'alrMinian Ju<Liirm. — Here, too, the Law, long the only Canon, remained supieuie. The
118
APOCRYPHA
APOCRYPHA
Jemsh scribes regarded the prophets as those who gave an authoritative interpretation of the Law, handing on the Mosaic tradition from the elders to the Bcnbes. The Law has always had the chief place in the synagogue service, the prophets an important secondary place, the Hagiographa a place altogether subordinate. For a long time these difl'erent collections could not be written on the same roll. As they did not form one volume, it was the easier to keep them distinct in use and estimation. The books of the 2nd and 3rd Canons were, however, according to the Jewish view, inspired, and this in the end distinguished them from all later books. Jos. (c. Ap. i. 8) says that the prophets ' learned the earliest and most ancient events by inspiration of God, and wrote down the events of their own times plainly, as they occurred.' 'But from Artaxerxes [Est] to our times all events have indeed been written down ; but these late books are not deemed worthy of the same credit, because the exact succession of the prophets was wanting.' By the use of the formal principle that with Alalachi prophecy ceased (cf. Mai 4»-«, Zee 13», 1 Mac 4" 9^ U"), though they could use the test only uncritically, the scribes drew the line between Hagiographa and A., or justified the line already drawn by the popular religious sense. All the Hagiographa could be regarded as meeting this test,* but Sir and 1 Mac, which were the most valued books of the A., could not.
It is true that Jesus Sirach himself does not share this (later) view of inspiration. He may represent the earlier Pal. standpoint, from which Alexandrianism took its start. For him the Law is supreme. It is the embodied Wisdom of God (24'''). In some sense his knowledge is all derived from it (39'- « 1i^). On the other hand, between the prophets and the high priest of his own time he makes no sharp distinction (44-49) ; and for himself he claims an inspiration like that of the prophet (cf. Sg""- with 48", and see l'" 24»'-'«' 5V-).