t 614 seems to be 1
. „ ar the hurt that hi hath done thee ; and then thy sins shall he pardoned when thou prayest." The association of Mt 6i9with Sir 2912, proposed by Daubney, is very doubtful ; equally vague is that of Mt 1627 with Sir 3224 ' He that trusteth in the Lord shall suffer no loss.' In both of these cases the sli^'ht resemblances are probably purely accidental. Lk li'tj tTicrrpi^Ki xxphix; recnpav l-ri ■rixvac evidently comes from Sir 4810 iTio-T()!iJ-«i xxplixv T«Tf«j Tpos viov. The peculiarity of thought and phrase is too striking for an accidental coincidence. But that it is a reminiscence and not a direct quotation is clear from the three changes of words for which no reason can be assigned since the sense remains the same, viz. singular for plural ; t/jw for m ; uln for -nxim.. The following clause in the parallelism is entirely different in the two texts, so that either the conclusion was quite forgotten or a new conclusion was deliberately formed. In Luke we have * and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just,' while the clause in Sir. is ' and to restore the tribes of Jacob.' The expression 'the wisdom of the just' in Luke seems to be a reference to the title of Sirach, which was probably originally simply ' Wisdom ' In codex B this is called 20*IA 2EIPAX ; and in the Syriac, NTD IDT Nn03n. SimUarly at the end of the Hebrew text it is described as 'the wisdom of Simeon ben .Teshua ben Eleazar ben Sira.' On the other hand, St. Luke has not the LXX word for wisdom (o-o^/'oi), his phrase being i> ^/jflvniru iixtx,lu)i. The conclusion to be drawn from these data seems to be that both Wisdom and Sirach were known to Mat., Luke, John, or to collectors of Logia of Jesus earlier than those Gospels, that Sirach especially was used by the author of the Maijnijicat^ and that our Lord seems to have made use of both books, Sirach more probably than Wisdom.
While the special subjects of this Dictionary do not call for a study of the Apocr. in later times, a topic exhaustively treated in DB, vol. i. pp. 120- 123, a brief resume of its history in the Church may be here added. The presence of the books which we desirrnate Apocryphal in the LXX mixed up with the OT Scriptures of the narrower Heb. Canon would naturally tend to float them among the Greek-speaking Churches. Several of them are cited as Scripture by Irena;us and Clement of Alexandria in the Greek Church, and by Tertullian and Cyprian in the Latin Church. While Melito of Sardis held to the Hebrew Canon, Origen championed the more comprehensive Greek Canon. A century later, Cyril of Jerusalem con- demned this wider Canon, holding to the Heb. 22 books ; and his position was confirmed by the Synod of Laodicea (c. 360 A.D.). Epiphanius and especially Athanasius introduced the intermediate course, a recognition of several of the Apocr., not, however, as in the Canon, but as goud and useful. Since then, while from time to tinio .scholars have declared the Apocryphal books to be non-canonical, ix-li has used them, and they are
the Eastern Clu;
in the Bible of the Greek Church. In the West, the Apocr. obtained acceptance as part of the Old Latin Version, which was based on the LXX, and as such formed part of Jerome's revision. But when Jerome translated the OT afresh from the Hebrew, seeing that the Apocr. was not there, he advised its rejection from the Canon. Still, he allowed it an intermediate position ; and, in spite of its translator's opinion to the contrary, the books of the Apocr. took their place in the Vulgate as integral parts of Scripture. At the Council of Trent the Vulgate being pronounced infallibly inspired, the Apocr. was canonized with the rest of that version, and therefore it is now regarded as Scripture in the Roman Catholic Church. Among Protestants it has either taken an intermediate position, or has been rejected as not being Scripture. Luther placed it between the OT and the NT with the title ' Apocrypha,' and a statement that it was 'not equal to the Sacred Scriptures,' but nevertheless 'useful and good to read.' The Reformed Church is more severe ; in the Ziirich Bible the Apocryphal books come after the NT as ' not numbered among the canonical books,' and without a word of com- mendation. Coverdale translated the Apocr. and placed it between the OT and the NT with a statement that the books were in the Vulgate but not in the Hebrew. It has a similar position in subsequent revisions, including AV (1611), where it is marked ' Apocrypha.' But from 1629 onwards editions of the AV began to appear without it.
Literature.— Swete, OT in Greek ; RV of Apocrypha ; Com- mentaries by Wace (Holy Bible with Com., Murray), Fritzsche, and Grimm^Kvrzge/asstes Exetjetisches Handbiichzu den Apocr. etc.); Bissell (Lange-Schaff) ; DB articles, 'Apocrypha,' 'De- velopment of Doctrine,' also articles on the several books of Apocr. ; Drummond, Jewish Meysiah and Phito JudcEJi^ ; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah ; Deane, The Book of Wisdom, ; Charles, Eschatology ; Paul Volz, Judische Eschatologie ; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentitms ; Schiirer, GJ PJ. The DB articles referred to contain lists of books, which therefore need not be repeated here. W. F. AdeNEY.