The neglect of the Apocrypha has been greatly increased by the widespread practice of publishing Bibles without it, and even of striking out from the margins of these mutilated Bibles all references to it. And this mischief has lately been augmented by the fact that the Revised Version omits it. Yet no portion of the Bible was in greater need of revision. The original texts used by the translators of 1611 were very bad; and perhaps in no part of the Authorized Version are utterly faulty translations more abundant. A comparison of the quotations given above with the text of the Authorized Version of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus will show that considerable changes have been made in order to bring the quotations into harmony with the true readings of the Greek text, and thus give a fair comparison with the words of St. James.
Books which the writers of the New Testament found worthy of study, and from which they derived some of their thoughts and language, ought not to be lightly disregarded by ourselves. We cannot disregard them without loss; and it is the duty of every reader of the Bible to see that his apprehension of the Old and New Testaments is not hindered through his ignorance of those writings which interpret the process of transition from the one to the other. Neglect of the helps to understanding His Word which God has placed easily within our reach may endanger our possession of that wisdom which St. James here assures us will be given to every one who asks for it in faith.
A discussion of that heavenly wisdom, and of the efficacy of prayer offered in faith, will be found in the expositions of later passages in the Epistle.[43]
[36] Grätz, Noack, Plumptre, F. W. Farrer.
[37] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. i., p. xli. (Murray, 1888).
[38] _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 114, 115 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).
[39] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23 (Murray 1888).
[40] _The Early Days of Christianity_, vol. i., pp. 517-18. Dr. Salmon leaves the question undecided (_Introduction to N.T._, p. 511).
[41] See Dr. Salmon's _General Introduction_ to the Apocrypha in the _Speaker's Commentary_, vol. i., pp. xli., xlii.
[42] _Edinburgh Review_, No. 345, January, 1889, pp. 58-95.
[43] See on iii. 13-18, and on v. 13-18. In connexion with this subject the Inaugural Lecture of Professor Margoliouth, on _The Place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature_ (Clarendon Press, 1890), and his defence of the position there maintained in the pages of the _Expositor_, should be studied. It is _possible_ that from the language of Ecclesiasticus we may be able to demonstrate that the late date assigned by recent critics to certain books in the Old Testament is quite untenable for the language of them is centuries older than that of Ecclesiasticus.