the progress of knowledge, several passages in the Bible require to be newly translated, or materially corrected. Hence, in the present age, when biblical literature has been assiduously cultivated, different parts of the sacred volume have been translated by able hands. The substituting a new translation of the Bible in the room of the one now in common use, has been much debated. Dr. Knox, in his ingenious essays, together with others, argues against it; while Dr. Newcome, the late Lord Primate of Ireland, the late Dr. Geddes, of the Catholic persuasion, and the late Rev. Gilbert Wakefield, contended strenuously for it. Bishop Lowth and Professor Marsh have pointedly shown the necessity of bringing the text of the Scriptures, by the aid of ancient manuscripts and versions, as near as may be to perfection."*

Ainsworth, Doddridge, Macknight, Lowth, Blaney, and others, have published new translations of parts of the sacred books in English; and there is no doubt that many improvements might be made upon the present authorized version, particularly in the Old Testament. Dr. Alexander Geddes, above mentioned, at his decease, had proceeded as far as the Psalms in the Translation of the Old Testament; but many of his variations from the common version are extremely injudicious. Archbishop Newcome and Mr. Wakefield published entire translations of the New Testament; and an improved version of the New Testament, founded on Newcome, has been published by the Unitarians, accompanied with notes and an excellent introduction.

With the professed object of defeating the attacks on Christianity, a new translation of the Bible was given to the world, some years ago, by Mr. J. Bellamy, of Gray'sInn lane, London. This version is in many places so very literal in its translation as to be unintelligible, and, therefore, unfit for any good purpose. The writer's forced and erroneous interpretations, as well as his unjustifiable attacks upon other versions and translators, were so far from tending to the accomplishment of his professed object, that they seemed rather calculated to produce the opposite effect; and, consequently, his new translation, which made some noise in its day, was soon judiciously consigned to oblivion. And, upon the whole, it may be observed, that, although it is generally acknowledged that after the lapse of two hundred and twenty years, the improvements in critical learning, and the discoveries in the pursuits of knowledge, together with hundreds of manuscripts that have since emerged into light, call for a revision of the present authorized version; yet such an attempt should not be rashly ventured upon, and it should not take place until the necessity of it becomes much more apparent to common apprehension than it is at present.

THE APOCRYPHA,

HAVING given an account of the origin and literary characteristics of the accredited and usually accepted books composing the Old and New Testaments, we now proceed to offer a few details relative to those books styled the Apocrypha, a branch of the subject possessed of considerable interest, and which we shall treat in the same measure of impartiality.

The term apocrypha is Greek, signifying hidden or concealed, and is used to desig nate a number of books, often placed between the Old and New Testaments, or otherwise bound up with them. Some writers divide the sacred books into three classes, viz., the canonical, the ecclesiastical, and the apocryphal. In the first they place those whose authority has never been questioned in the catholic or universal church; in the second, those which were not received at first, but which were nevertheless read in the public assemblies as books that were useful, though they never placed them upon the same footing of authority as the former; and in the third they placed the books which were of no authority, which could not be made to appear in public, but were kept hidden, and were therefore called apocryphal, that is, concealed, or such as could not be used in public. "Let us lay aside those books which have been called apocryphal," says St. Augustine, "because their authors were not known to our fathers, who have by a constant and certain succession transmitted down to us the authority and truth of the Holy Scriptures. Though some things in these apocryphal books are true, yet, as there are in them multitudes of others which are false, they are of no authority."

Sketches of all Denominations, p. 135.

The Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, viz: First and Second Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, the Story of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and the First and Second Book of the Maccabees. Every attentive reader must perceive that these books want the majesty of inspired scripture; and that there are in them a variety of things wicked, false, and disagreeing with the oracles of God. None of them were ever found in the proper Hebrew tongue; and they were never received into the canon of scripture by the Jews, to whom the oracles of God were originally committed. They were partly read in private by the ancient Christians as useful, but they did not admit them into the canon of scripture. None of them are found in the catalogue of the canonical books by Melita, bishop of Sardis, in the second century; nor does Origen in the third, or Epiphanius in the fourth, in the least acknowledge their authenticity. One or two of the writers of them also ask pardon if they have said anything amiss; which clearly shows that they were not inspired, or at least did not consider themselves to be so; and therefore these books can by no means be considered as having a title to form part of the word of God. A very simple analysis of the books them selves will be sufficient to demonstrate this to every attentive mind.

I. It is not known at what time the First Book of Esdras was written, neither is it known who was the author of it; but Prideaux considers it certain that he wrote before the time of Josephus. It was originally to be found only in Greek; and in the Alexandrian manuscript it is placed before the canonical Book of Ezra, and is there called the First Book of Ezra, because the events related in it occurred prior to the return from the Babylonish captivity. In some editions of the Septuagint it is called the First Book of the Priest (meaning Ezra), the authentic book of Ezra being called the second book. In the editions of the Latin Vulgate previous to the Council of Trent, this and the following book are styled the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, those of Ezra and Nehemiah being entitled the first and second books. This book is chiefly historical, giving an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of the temple, and the re-establishment of divine worship. It is, in fact, nothing but a bad extract of the last two chapters of Chronicles, and the Book of Ezra; and in a great many instances it even contradicts these. The author falsely makes Zorobabel a young man in the days of Darius Hystaspes, and Joakim to be his son; whereas he was the son of Joshua, the high-priest. He calls Darius king of Assyria, long after that empire was utterly dissolved; and makes some inings to be done under Darius which were done under Cyrus.

II. The author of the Second Book of Esdras is likewise unknown. It is supposed to have been originally written in Greek, though the original of it has never been found but in Latin; and there is an Arabic version, differing very materially from it, and having many interpolations. Although the writer personates Ezra, it is manifest from the style and contents of his book, that he lived long after that celebrated Jewish reformer. He pretends to visions and revelations; but they are so fanciful, indigested, ridiculous, and absurd, that it is clear the Holy Spirit could have no concern in the dictating of them. He believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that the souls of good and wicked men would all be then delivered out of hell. A great many rabbinical fables occur in this book, particularly the account of the six days' creation, and the story of Behemoth (or Enoch, as it is here called) and Leviathantwo monstrous creatures that are designed as a feast for the elect after the day of resurrection, &c. He says that the ten tribes are gone away into a country which he calls Arsareth, and that Ezra restored the whole body of the Scriptures, which had been entirely lost. He also speaks of Jesus Christ and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the gospel itself is scarcely more explicit. On these, accounts, and from the numerous traces of the language of the New Testament, and especially of the Revelation of St. John, which are discoverable in this book, several critics have concluded that it was written about the close of the first century, by some converted Jew, who assumed the name of Esdras or Ezra.

III. The Book of Tobit, from the simplicity of the narrative, and the lessons of piety and meekness which it contains, has been always one of the most popul‐r of the apocryphal writings. It was first written in Chaldee by some Babylonian Tew; but there is no authentic information as to his name, or the time when he flourished. It professes to relate the history of Tobit and his family, who were carried into ap

tivity to Nineveh by Shalmanezer, being first begun by Tobit, then continued by his son Tobias, and, lastly, finished by some other of the family, and afterward digested by the Chaldee author into that form in which we now have it. The time of this history ends with the destruction of Nineveh, about six hundred and twelve years before Christ; but most commentators and critics agree in thinking that the book itself was not written till about one hundred and fifty or two hundred years before Christ. It has been generally looked upon, both by Jews and Christians, as a genuine and true history; but it contains so many rabbinical fictions, and allusions to the Babylonian demonology, that it is much more rational to suppose the whole book an entire fable. It is not probable that, in the time of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, the father should live, as is here said, one hundred and fifty-eight years, and the son one hundred and twenty-seven. It is certain no angel of God could falsely call himself "Azarias the son of Ananias," as this writer affirms. The story of Sarah's seven husbands being successively killed on their marriage-night by an evil spirit, and of that spirit's being driven away by the smell and smoke of the roasted heart and liver of a fish, and bound in the uttermost parts of Egypt, or of the angel Raphael's presenting to God the prayers of the saints, with other matters evidently fabulous, are quite sufficient to justify the rejecting of this book entirely from the sacred canon, upon the score of internal evidence alone.

IV. The Book of Judith professes to relate the defeat of the Assyrians by the Jews, through the instrumentality of their country woman of this name, who craftily cut off the head of Holofernes, the Assyrian general. This book was originally written in Chaldee by some Jew of Babylon, and was thence translated by St. Jerome into the Latin tongue. Dr. Prideaux refers this history to the time of Manasseh, king of Judah; Jahn assigns it to the age of the Maccabees, and thinks it was written to animate the Jews against the Syrians; but so many geographical, historical, and chronological difficulties attend this book, that Luther, Grotius, and other eminent critics, have considered it rather as a drama or parable than a real history. It has been received into the canon of scripture by some as being all true; but, on the other hand, it is the opinion of Grotius that it is entirely a parabolical fiction, written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when he came into Judea to raise a persecution against the Jewish church, and that the design of it was to confirm the Jews, under that persecution, in their hope that God would send a deliverer. According to him, by Judith is meant Judea, which, at the time of this persecution, was like a desolate widow: that her sword means the prayers of the saints: that by Bethulia, the name of the town which was attacked, is meant the temple, or the house of the Lord, which is called in Hebrew Bethel. Nabuchodonosor denotes the devil, and the kingdom of Assyria the devil's kingdom, pride. Holofernes, whose name signifies a minister of the serpent, means Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the devil's instrument in that persecution, &c., &c. It is plain that in this way, by means of a little ingenuity, anything may be made of anything; and such conjectures as these, as an able commentator remarks, however ingenious, are better calculated to exhibit the powers of fancy and the abuse of learning, than to investigate truth, or throw light on what is uncertain and obscure. The noted deliverance mentioned in this book is there said to have happened after the Jews had returned from their captivity, and had rebuilt the temple, and yet it is said to have been in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is absurd; and it is said that they had no trouble for eighty years or more after this deliverance, which is equally absurd, as the Jews during any period of their history, or indeed any other nation, never enjoyed a peace of such long continuance. It is quite improbable that a small town, as Bethulia is here represented to be, should stand out against so powerful an army, or that the death of the general should have made all the troops betake themselves to a shameful flight. It is certainly wrong, as is done in the case of Judith, to commend a woman as a devout fearer of the Lord, who was guilty of notorious lying, of acting the part of a bawd, of profane swearing, of murder, and of speaking in praise of that committed by the patriarch Simeon, whom she claims as her ancestor.

V. "The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee," were originally written in Greek, whence they were translated into Latin, and formed part of the Italic or old Latin version in use before the time of Jerome. Being there annexed to the canonical Book of Esther, they passed without censure, but were rejected by Jerome in his version, because he con

fined himself to the Hebrew Scriptures, and these chapters never were extant in the Hebrew language. They are evidently the production of a Hellenistic Jew, but are considered both by Jerome and Grotius as a work of pure fiction, which was annexed to the canonical book by way of embellishment. From the coincidence between some of these apocryphal chapters and Josephus, it has been supposed that they are a compilation from the Jewish historian; and this conjecture is further confirmed by the mention of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who lived but a short time before Josephus. These additions to the Book of Esther are often cited by the father of the church; and the Council of Trent has assigned them a place among the canonical books.*

The author of these apocryphal chapters says many things that are in direct contradiction to the inspired historian; as when he affirms that the attempt made by the eunuchs to take away the life of Ahasuerus was in the second year of his reign; that Mordecai was at the very time rewarded for his discovery; that Haman had been advanced before this event, and was provoked with Mordecai for his discovery of the eunuchs; that Haman was a Macedonian, and intended to transfer the government of Persia to the Macedonians. He very stupidly, also, represents Ahasuerus looking upon Esther, "as a fierce lion," and yet "with a countenance full of grace!" and as calling the Jews "the children of the most high and most mighty living God ;" and as ordering the heathens to keep the feast of Purim.

VI. The book of "The Wisdom of Solomon" was never written by that monarch, as its author falsely pretends; for it was never extant in Hebrew, nor received into the Jewish canon of scripture, nor is the style like that of Solomon. It consists of two parts: the first, which is written in the name of Solomon, contains a description or encomium of wisdom, by which comprehensive term the ancient Jews understood prudence and foresight, knowledge and understanding, and especially the duties of religion and morality. This division includes the first ten chapters. The second part, comprising the rest of the book, treats on a variety of topics widely differing from the subject of the first, viz., reflections on the history and conduct of the Israelites during their journeyings in the wilderness, and their subsequent proneness to idolatry. Hence the author takes occasion to inveigh against idolatry, the origin of which he investigates, and concludes with reflections on the history of the people of God. His allegorical interpretations of the Pentateuch, and the precept which he gives to worship God before the rising of the sun, have induced some critics to think that the author was of the Jewish sect called Essenes.

Although the fathers of the church, and particularly Jerome, uniformly considered this book as apocryphal, yet they recommended the perusal of it, in consideration of the excellence of its style. The third Council of Carthage, held in the year 397, pronounced it to be a canonical book, under the name of "the Fourth Book of Solomon," and the famous Council of Trent confirmed this decision. Jerome informs us that several writers of the first three centuries ascribed the authorship of it to Philo the Jew, a native of Alexandria who flourished in the first century; and this opinion is generally adopted by the moderns, on account of the Platonic notions that are discoverable in it, as well as from its general style, which evidently shows that it was the production of a Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria. Drusius, indeed, attributes it to another Philo, more ancient than the person just mentioned, and who is cited by Josephus; but this hypothesis is untenable, because the author of the Book of Wisdom was confessedly either a Jew or a heretical Christian, whereas the Philo mentioned by Drusius was a heathen.

It is quite evident that this author had read Plato and the Greek poets; and he employs a great many expressions taken from them, such as Ambrosia, the river of forgetfulness; the kingdom of Pluto, &c.; as also several words borrowed from the Grecian games, which were not in use till long after the time of Solomon, whose name he assumes. A great many of his phrases seem to be taken out of the Prophets, and even from the New Testament. There are numerous passages in the book evidently borrowed from the Prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah; particularly in the thirteenth chapter, where there are no less than nine verses plainly copied from the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah.

This author brings forward mauy things that are contrary both to the words of inspiration and to common sense. He condemns the marriage-bed as sinful, and also excludes bastards from the hopes of salvation: he talks as if souls were lodged in

* Vide Horne's Introduction to the Scripture, vol. iv. p. 229.

bodies according to their former merits; makes the murder of Abel the cause of the flood; represents the Egyptians as being plagued entirely by their own idols, that is to say, by the beasts which they worshipped, though it is certain they never worshipped frogs, locusts, or lice. He also calls the divine Logos, or second person of the Trinity, a vapor or steam, with many other things that are evidently absurd.

The seventh book of the Apocrypha, is entitled "The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus," which, like the preceding, has sometimes been considered as the production of King Solomon; whence the council of Carthage deemed it canonical, under the title of the Fifth Book of Solomon, and their decision was adopted by the council of Trent. It is, however, manifest, that it was not, and could not be written by Solomon, because in it allusion is made to the captivity; although it is not improbable that the author collected some scattered sentiments ascribed to Solomon, which he arranged with the other materials he had selected for his work. Sonntag is of opinion that this book is a collection of fragments, or miscellaneous hints for a large work, planned out and begun, but not completed. From the book itself it appears that it was written by a person of the name of Jesus the Son of Sirach, who had travelled in pursuit of knowledge. By reading the Scriptures, and other good books, he attained a considerable share of wisdom; and by collecting the grave and short sentences of such as went before him, and adding sundry of his own, he endeavored to produce a work of instruction that might be useful to his country

men.

This book was originally written in Hebrew, or rather the Syro-Chaldaic dialect then in use in Judea about the year 232 before Christ, when the author was probably about seventy years of age. Jesus, his grandson, who is also called The Son of Sirach, translated it into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Evergetes, king of Egypt, about 140 years before Christ, for the use of the Hellenistical Jews, among whom he had settled in Alexandria. The Hebrew original is now lost; but it was extant in the time of Jerome, for he tells us that he had seen it under the title of The Parables; but he says that the common name of it in Greek was The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. The Latin version of this book has more in it than the Greek, several particulars being inserted which are not in the other. These seem to have been interpolated by the first author of that version; but now the Hebrew being lost, the Greek, which has been made from it by the grandson of the author, must stand for the original, and from that the English translation has been made. From the supposed resemblance of this book to that of Ecclesiasticus, it has received from the Latin translator the title of Ecclesiasticus, by which name it is most generally known and referred to.

Ecclesiasticus is considered by far the best of all the apocryphal books. The ancients called it Panareton, that is, The Treasury of Virtue, as supposing it to contain maxims leading to every virtue. It has met with general esteem, also, in most of the western churches, and was introduced into the public service of the Church of England by the compilers of its Liturgy. It was frequently cited by the fathers of the church under the titles of "The Wisdom of Jesus," "Wisdom,' "The Treasures of all the Virtues," or "Logos, the Discourse;" and in those times it was put into the hands of catechumens, or young Christians under examination, on account of the edifying nature of its instruction.

VIII. The Book of "Baruch" is not extant in Hebrew, and only in Greek and Syriac; but in what language it was originally written it is now impossible to ascertain. Grotius is of opinion that it is an entire fiction, and that it was composed by some Hellenistical Jew, under the name of Baruch. The principal subject of the book is an epistle, pretended to be sent by Jehoiakim and the captive Jews in Babylon, to their brethren in Judah and Jerusalem; and the last chapter contains an epistle which falsely bears the name of Jeremiah. This has never been considered as a canonical book, either by the Jews or the Christians; and, indeed, it is little else than an arrant romance. It absurdly pretends to have been written by Baruch at Babylon, when it is probable he never went thither: that it was read to Jechoniah at the river Sud, which is nowhere else mentioned; nor could Jeconiah hear it there, when he was confined in prison. It mentions a collection to buy sacrifices, gathered by the captives in Babylon, and sent to Joakim the priest, along with the sacred vessels which Zedekiah had made; but how could the captives newly enslaved in BabyIon be able to make collections? How could they send it to a high-priest that did not then exist? How could the sacred vessels which Zedekiah made be returned from