they are encouraged to go on with the building (9-17.), and 2. It is urged, that many things are mentioned in these are permitted to discontinue the observance of the fasts which chapters, which by no means correspond with Zechariah's they had kept during the captivity. (18-23.) time; as, when events are foretold, which had actually taken DISCOURSE 2. Contains predictions of the conquest of Syria, place before that time. But it may be questioned, whether Phoenicia, and Palestine, by Alexander the Great (ix. 1-7.), those subjects of prophecy have been rightly understood; and of the watchful providence of God over his temple in those and whether that, which has been construed as having retroublesome times. (8.) Whence he takes occasion to de- ference to past transactions, may not in reality terminate in scribe, as in a parenthesis, the advent of Christ (9, 10. with others of a later period, and some perhaps which are yet to Matt. xxi. 5. and John xii. 15.); and then returning to his come. former subject, he announces the conquest of the Jews, particu3. Another argument is drawn from ch. xi., which conlarly of the Maccabees, over the princes of the Grecian mo-tains a prophecy of the destruction of the temple and people narchy. (11-17.) Prosperity is further promised to the Jews of the Jews; a prophecy, "which (it has been said) is not (x. 1-3.), and their victories over their enemies are again agreeable to the scope of Zechariah's commission, who, toforetold. (4-12.) It is probable that this prophetic discourse gether with his colleague Haggai, was sent to encourage the remains to be fully accomplished in the general and final repeople, lately returned from captivity, to build their temple, and to restore their commonwealth." storation of the Jews. This, it is granted, was the general scope of Zechariah's commission in the first eight chapters; nor would it have been a fit time to foretell the destruction of both the temple and commonwealth, while they were but yet building. But, between the date of these first chapters and that of the succeeding ones, many circumstances might have occurred, and certainly did occur, to give

DISCOURSE 3. predicts the rejection of the Jews for their rejection of Messiah, and valuing him and his labours at the base price of thirty pieces of silver. (xi.) This prediction was literally fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. (Compare Matt. xxvi. 14, 15. and xxvii. 3-10. with Zech. xi. 11-13.) The Jews themselves have expounded this prophecy of the Mes-rise to a commission of a very different complexion from the

siah.

DISCOURSE 4. comprises a series of prophecies, relating principally to the latter times of the Gospel. The former part of it (xii. 1–9.) announces the preservation of Jerusalem against an invasion in the last ages of the world, which most commentators think is that of Gog and Magog, more largely described in the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel. The grief of the Jews, for their fathers having crucified the Messiah, on their conversion, is then foretold (10--14.), as also the crucifixion itself, and the general conversion of the Jews. (xiii.) The destruction of their enemies, predicted at the beginning of this prophetic sermon, is again foretold (xiv. 1-15.); and the prophecy concludes with announcing the final conversion of all nations to the Gospel, and the prosperity of the church. (16-21.)

and fourth years of the reign of Darius; to the latter, no foregoing. The former are expressly dated in the second date at all is annexed. Darius is supposed to have reigned thirty-six years; and the Jews have a tradition that the three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, did not die before the last year of that king's reign. Adinitting, then, Zechariah to have prophesied again towards the close of his life, he may well be supposed to have published without any incongruity, after such an interval, what would not altogether have accorded with the period and purport of his first commission. And as there is good reason to believe that this was the case; so upon this ground we may also not improbably conclude him to have been that very Zechariah of whom our Saviour spake (Matt. xxiii. 35.) as slain between the temple and the altar. For he was, according to our Saviour's description, the son of Barachias, and comes in-where, from what is said of him he might naturally be expectedat the close of that series of prophets (for there were none after him until the coming of Christ) who were put to death in the faithful discharge of their duty. That he was become obnoxious to his countrymen, may be collected from ch. xi. 8. And, if the records of the Old Testament are silent concerning his death, let it be remembered that it was a very small part of them, if any, that was written after that event.

he was but a youth, as he is said to be in ch. ii. 4.

III. Zechariah is the longest of the twelve minor prophets. His style, like that of Haggai, is for the most part prosaic, though more obscure towards the beginning on account of his types and visions. But the difficulties arising from his alleged obscurity may be accounted for by the fact, "that some of his predictions relate to matters which are still involved in the womb of futurity: no wonder, then, that these fall not within the reach of our perfect comprehension. Others there are, which we have good reason to believe have already been fulfilled, but do not appear with such a degree of 4. Lastly, upon the same supposition, the allowed difevidence, as they probably would have done, if we had been ference of style and manner may be accounted for, not only better informed concerning the time and facts to which they ferent age of the author; who may well be credited to have as arising from the diversity of the subject, but from the dif relate. With respect to the emblems and types that are ex-written with more dignity in his advanced years, than when hibited, they are most of them of easy and determinate application. And in favour of the importance of his subject matter, it must be acknowledged that, next to Isaiah, Zechariah is the most evangelical of all the prophets, having more frequent and more clear and direct allusions to the character and coming of the Messiah, and his kingdom, than any of the rest. Nor in his language and composition do we find any particular bias to obscurity, except that the quickness and suddenness of the transitions are sometimes apt to confound the boundaries of discourse, so as to leave the less attentive reader at a loss to whom the several parts of it are to be ascribed. But upon the whole we shall find the diction remarkably pure, the construction natural and perspicuous, and the style judiciously varied according to the nature of the subject; simple and plain in the narrative and historical I. Author and date.-II. Occasion and scope of his prophecy. parts; but in those that are wholly prophetical, the latter chapters in particular, rising to a degree of elevation and grandeur scarcely inferior to the sublimest of the inspired writings."

IV. The diversity of style observable in the writings of this prophet has induced many modern critics to conclude that the last six chapters could not have been written by Zechariah: but their objections, however formidable in appearance, admit of an easy and satisfactory solution.

1. It is alleged that the evangelist Matthew (xxvii. 9.) cites a passage now found in Zech. xi. 13. as spoken, not by Zechariah, but by Jeremiah. But it is more probable (as we have already shown in the first volume of this work), that the name of Jeremiah has slipped into the text through some mistake of the transcribers.

Dr Blayney's Translation of Zechariah, Prel. Disc. pp. xv. xvi.

Upon the whole this conclusion may be drawn; that, setting aside the doubtful authority of St. Matthew's text, there is nothing else to be found sufficient to invalidate the title of Zechariah to the chapters in question; and, conse quently, that it was not written by Jeremiah, as Mede, Dr Hammond, and others have supposed, nor before the time of that prophet, as Archbishop Newcome conjectured, whose opinion was adopted by Archbishop Secker, and also by Doederlein.

3. ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET MALACHI.

—III. Analysis of its contents.-IV. Style.

BEFORE CHRIST, 436--420.

I. CONCERNING Malachi, the last of the minor prophets (which name signifies my angel or my messenger), so little is known, that it has been doubted whether his name be a proper name, or only a generic name, signifying the angel of Haggai (1. 13.) with Malachi (iii. 1.), it appears, that in of the Lord, a messenger, a prophet. From a comparison those times the appellation of Malach-Jehovah, or the messenger of the Lord, was given to the prophets. The Septuagint translators have rendered Malachi his angel instead of my

2 Dr. Blayney's Translation of Zechariah, pp. 35-37. The genuineness of the latter part of the prophecy of Zechariah is satisfactorily proved, by a minute examination of its language, style, poetical structure, argument, and scope, by Dr. F. B. Koester, in his Meletemata Critica in Zecharia Prophetæ Partem posteriorein, cap. ix.-xiv. pro tuenda ejus authentià. Svo. Gottinge, 1819.

II. The Jews, having rebuilt the temple and re-established IV. Although the writings of this prophet are almost the worship of Jehovah, after the death of Zerubbabel and wholly in prose, yet they are by no means destitute of force Joshua relapsed into their former irreligion in consequence and elegance. He reproves the wickedness of his countryof the negligence of the priests. Although they were sub-men with great vehemence; and Bishop Lowth observes that sequently reformed during the governments of Ezra and Nehemiah, yet they fell into gross abuses after the death of Ezra, and during Nehemiah's absence at the court of Persia. The prophet Malachi was therefore commissioned to reprove the priests and people, more particularly after Nehemiah's

CHAPTER V.

ON THE APOCRYPHA.4

1. Account of the First Book of Esdras.-II. Of the Second Book of Esdras.-III. Of the Book of Tobit.-IV. Of the Book of Judith.-V. Of the rest of the Chapters of Esther.-VI. Of the Book of Wisdom.-VII. Of the Book of Ecclesiasticus.—VIII. Of Baruch.-IX. Of the Song of the Three Children.-X. Of the History of Susanna.-XI. Of Bel and the Dragon. -XII. Of the Prayer of Manasses.-XIII. Of the Book of Maccabees.

I. It is not known at what time the FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS | Nehemiah, which, however, it contradicts in many instances. was written it is only extant 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 Esdras and Nehemiah being entitled the first and second books. The author of this book is not known; it is compiled from the books of Ezra and Jahn's Introduction, p. 435.

grounds upon what he considers to be its evidently Jewish | inculcates, have imparted to it an interest, which has rendered style and phraseology. Archbishop Laurence thinks it highly it one of the most popular of the apocryphal writings. probable that the Latin version was immediately and literally IV. The BOOK OF JUDITH professes to relate the defeat of taken from the Greek: it is indisputably of very high anti- the Assyrians by the Jews, through the instrumentality of quity. It is also extant in an Arabic translation, the date of their countrywoman Judith, whose genealogy is recorded in which is unknown, and in an Ethiopic version (where it is the eighth chapter; but so many geographical, historical, called the first book of Esdras), which cannot be traced and chronological difficulties attend this book, that Luther, higher than the fourth century: both, however, seem to be Grotius, and other eminent critics, have considered it rather taken from the Greek, and differ considerably from the Latin as a drama or parable than a real history. Dr. Prideaux, version which last, in the judgment of Dr. Laurence, may however, is of opinion that it carries with it the air of a true be advantageously corrected by the other two. In the Ethio-history in most particulars, except that of the long-continued pic version, it is termed the first book of Esdras. Both this peace said to have been procured by Judith; which, accordand the Arabic versions have only from Chapter III. to Chap-ing to the account given in this book, must have continued ter XIV. inclusive. The remaining chapters, as found in the Latin Vulgate, have clearly no connection with it, but form two separate apocryphal pieces, and are thus distinguished in almost all the manuscripts of the Vulgate, though they are now printed as part of the second book of Esdras.

The author of this book is unknown; although he 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 that the Holy Spirit could have no concern in dictating them. He believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that the souls of good and wicked men would all be delivered out of hell after the day of judgment. Numerous rabbinical fables occur in this book, particularly the account of the six days' creation, and the story of Behemoth and Leviathan, two 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 (xiii. 40 45.), and that Ezra restored the whole body of the Scriptures, which had been entirely lost. (xiv. 21.) And he 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 vestiges of the language of the New Testament, and especially of the Revelation of Saint John, which are discoverable in this book, Moldenhawer and some other critics conclude that it was written by some converted Jew, in the close of the first or early in the second century, who assumed the name of Esdras or Ezra. But Archbishop Laurence considers those passages to be interpolations, and observes that the character which the unknown writer gives of the Messiah is a very different one from what a Christian would have given. He is therefore of opinion that this book was written by a Jew, who lived before the commencement of the Christian æra; and that, as an authentic record of Jewish opinions on several interesting points almost immediately before the rise of Christianity, it seems to deserve no inconsiderable attention.2 This book was rejected as apocryphal by Jerome.

III. Concerning the author of the book of TOBIT, or the time when he flourished, we have no authentic information. It professes to relate the history of Tobit and his family, who were carried into captivity to Nineveh by Shalmaneser; but it contains so many rabbinical fables, and allusions to the Babylonian demonology, that many learned men consider it as an ingenious and amusing fiction, calculated to form a pious temper, and to teach the most important duties. From some apparent coincidences between this book and some parts of the New Testament, Moldenhawer is disposed to refer it to the end of the first century: but Jahn and most other commentators and critics think it was written about one hundred and fifty or two hundred years before the birth of our Saviour. According to Jerome, who translated the book of Tobit into Latin, it was originally written in Chaldee by some Babylonian Jew. It was probably begun by Tobit, continued by his son Tobias, and finished by some other individual of the family; after which it was digested into the order in which we now have it. There is a Greek version of this book extant, much more ancient than Jerome's Latin translation: for it is referred to by Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and other fathers, who lived long before the time of Jerome. From this Greek version the Syriac translation was made, and also that which is found among the apocryphal books in our English Bibles. Although the book of Tobit has always been rejected from the sacred canon, it was cited with respect by the early fathers of the Christian church the simplicity of its narrative, and the pious and moral lessons it Primi Ezra Libri Versio Ethiopica. General Remarks, pp. 280282. 291. Ibid. pp. 309, 310. 320.

eighty years. But, as the Jews never enjoyed a peace of so long continuance since they were a nation, he is disposed to allow that circumstance to be a fiction, though he is inclined to think that the book in other respects is a true history. In opposition to this opinion, it has been contended by Heidegger, Moldenhawer, and others, that if it were a true history, some notice of the victory it records would have been taken by Josephus, who is on no occasion deficient when an oppor tunity presents itself of magnifying the achievements of his countrymen. Philo is equally silent concerning this book and its author. The time when and the place where he lived are totally unknown. Dr. Prideaux refers the book to the time of Manasseh; Jahn assigns it to the age of the Maccabees, and thinks it was written to animate the Jews against the Syrians. Grotius refers it to the same period, and is of opinion that it is wholly a parabolic fiction written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when he came into Judæa to persecute the Jewish church, and that its design was to confirm the Jews, under that persecution, in their hope that God would send them a deliverer. According to him, by Judith is intended Judæa: by Bethulia the temple or house of God; and by the sword which went out thence, the prayers of the saints; Nebuchadonosor denotes the devil; Assyria his kingdom, that is, pride: Holofernes means Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the devil's instrument in that persecution, &c. &c. But such conjectures, as an able commentator3 remarks, however ingenious, are better calcu lated 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 book of Judith was originally written in Chaldee, and translated into Latin. Besides this translation, there are two others, one in Greek, and the other in Syriac; the former is attributed to Theodotion, but is certainly much older, for it is cited by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians, who flourished sixty years before Theodotion. The Syriac version was made from the Greek, whence also our present English translation was made.1

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, they passed without censure, but were rejected by Jerome in his version, because he confined himself to the Hebrew Scriptures, and these chapters never were extant in the Hebrew language. They are evidently the production of an Hellenistic Jew, but are considered both by Jerome and Grotius as a work of pure fiction, which was annexed to the canonical book of Esther 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 no long time before Josephus. These additions to the book of Esther are often cited by the fathers of the church; and the council of Trent has assigned them a place among the canonical books.

VI. "THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON" is commonly ascribed to that Hebrew monarch, either because the author imitated his sententious manner of writing, or because he sometimes speaks in his name, the better to recommend his moral precepts. It is, however, certain that Solomon was not the author, for it was never extant in Hebrew, nor received into

v.

3 Mr. Hewlett, in his Preface to the book of Judith. 4 Grotii Præfatio ad Annotationes in Librum Judith, apud Crit. Sacr. tom. p. 50. Moldenhawer, Introd, ad Vet. Test. PP. 155-158. Dr. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i. pp. 36-40. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Ford. pp. 554-561. From the subscription to the book of Esther in LXX., it seems to have been translated B. c. 163. ; at which time it is probable the apocryphal parts were first interpolated.

the Hebrew canon, nor is the style like that of Solomon. | made (xlvii. 24, 25.) to the captivity: although it is not Further, it is evident that it could not have been written by improbable that the author collected some scattered sentihim, not only from the numerous passages which are cited ments ascribed to Solomon, which he arranged with the other in it from the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who did materials he had selected for his work. Sonntag is of not live till long after that king's reign, but also from its opinion that this book is a collection of fragments or miscel contradictions of historical truth, particularly in ch. xv. 14. laneous hints for a large work, planned out and begun, but where the author represents his countrymen as being in sub- not completed. Respecting the author of the book of jection to enemies, whom he describes as being "most foolish, Ecclesiasticus, we have no information but what we collect and more miserable than the very babes." Whereas we are from the book itself; and from this it appears that it was expressly informed by the sacred historian, that Judah and written by a person of the name of Jesus the son of Sirach, Israel enjoyed the greatest possible prosperity and peace who had travelled in pursuit of knowledge, and who, accordduring the reign of Solomon. (1 Kings iv. 20, 21. 24, 25.) ing to Bretschneider, lived about 180 B. c. This man being To which we may add, that this book contains several words deeply conversant with the Old Testament, and having colborrowed from the Grecian games, that were not in use till lected many things from the prophets, blended them, as well long after his time; for instance, cr@arnocpuv (iv. 2.), to wear as the sentences ascribed to Solomon, with the result of his a crown, such as was given to victors, (iv. 2.), to own observation, and thus endeavoured to produce an ethical make a triumphant entry as the victors did, after they had treatise that might be useful to his countrymen. This book received the crown,- (iv. 2. x. 12.), the stadium or was written in Hebrew, or rather the Syro-Chaldaic dialect place appointed for the race, (iv. 2.), the reward ap- then in use in Judæa, and was translated by his grandson into propriated to the successful candidate, and @p6v (x. 12.), Greek, about the year 130 B.-C., for the use of the Alexanto confer the prize of victory. On these accounts, Jerome drian Jews, who were ignorant of the language of Judæa. informs us that several ancient writers of the first three cen- The translator himself is supposed to have been a son of turies ascribed it to Philo the Jew, a native of Alexandria, | Sirach, as well as his grandfather the author. who flourished in the first century; and this opinion is generally adopted by the moderns, from the Platonic notions discoverable in it, as well as from its style, which evidently shows that it was the production of an Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria. Drusius indeed attributes it to another Philo, more ancient than the person just mentioned, and who is cited by Josephus 2 but this hypothesis is untenable, because the author of the book of Wisdom was confessedly a Jew, and the Philo of Drusius was a heathen. Bishop Lowth considers this book evidently to be the production of some Hellenistic Jew, by whom it was originally written in Greek.

The book of Wisdom consists of three 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 principally the duties of religion and morality. This division includes the first six chapters. The second part points out the source of true wisdom and the means of obtaining it, in the seventh and eighth chapters. In the third part, comprising the remainder of the book, the author personifies Solomon, in whose name he introduces a long and tedious prayer or address to the Deity, which treats on a variety of topics, differing from the subject of the two preceding parts; viz. reflections on the history and conduct of the Israelites during their journeyings in the wilderness, and their subsequent proneness to idolatry. Hence he 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 (xvi. 28.), to worship God before the rising of the sun, have induced some critics to think that the author was of the sect of the Essenes.

993

The style of this book, Bishop Lowth pronounces to be very unequal. "It is often pompous and turgid, as well as tedious and diffuse, and abounds in epithets, directly contrary to the practice of the Hebrews; it is, however, sometimes temperate, poetical, and sublime." The book of Wisdom has always been admired for the sublime ideas which it contains of the perfections of God, and for the excellent moral tendency of its precepts; on which account some of the ancients styled it Panaretos, or the treasury of virtue. Although the fathers of the church, and particularly Jerome, uniformly considered it as apocryphal, yet they recommended its perusal, in consideration of its excellence. The third council of Carthage, held in 397, pronounced it to be a canonical book, under the name of the fourth book of Solomon, and the council of Trent confirmed this decision. Three ancient translations of it are extant, in Syriac, Arabic, and Latin; the last was executed before the time of Jerome, who says that he did not correct it. It is full of barbarisms.

VII. "THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH, or EcCLESIASTICUS," like the preceding, has sometimes been considered as the production of 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 allusion is

The book of Ecclesiasticus "is a collection, without any definite order, of meditations and proverbs relating to religion, to morals, and to the conduct of human life; generally distinguished by much acuteness of thought, and propriety of diction; and not unfrequently marked by considerable beauty and elegance of expression; and occasionally rising to the sublimest heights of human eloquence."6 From the great similarity between this book and the proverbs of Solomon, in matter, sentiments, diction, complexion of the style, and construction of the periods, Bishop Lowth is of opinion, that the author adopted the same mode of versification which is found in the Proverbs; and that he has performed his translation with such a religious regard to the Hebrew idiom, that, were it literally and accurately to be retranslated, he has very little doubt that, for the most part, the original diction might be recovered."

This book has met with general and deserved esteem in the Western church, and was introduced into the public service by the venerable reformers and compilers of our national liturgy. It may be divided into three parts; the first of which (from ch. 1. to xliii.) contains a commendation of wisdom, and precepts for the regulation of life, that are adapted to persons of all classes and conditions, and of every age and sex. In the second part, the author celebrates the patriarchs, prophets, and other distinguished men among the Jews. (xliv.-1.) And the third part, containing the fiftieth chapter, concludes with a prayer or hymn of the author, and an exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom.

The book of Ecclesiasticus was frequently cited by the fathers of the church under the titles of Inow Zoqia, the wisdom of Jesus, Пavaperos Zopia, wisdom, the treasure of all the virtues, or Ayes, the discourse. The Latins cite it under the appellation of Ecclesiasticus, that is, a book which was read in the churches, to distinguish it from the book of Ecclesiastes. Anciently it was put into the hands of catechumens, on account of the edifying nature of its instruction; next to the inspired writings, a collection of purer moral precepts does not exist. Besides the Greek copy of this book, and the Latin version, there are two versions of it, one in Syriac, and the other in Arabic; the Latin translation is supposed to have been executed in the first century of the Christian æra: it is full of Greek terms, but differs widely from the present Greek of Ecclesiasticus. "The authorized English version of this treatise appears to have been made from the Greek text, as exhibited in the Complutensian Polyglott, -a text which has, not without reason, been suspected of having been made conformable in many places to the Vulgate. A new translation, made immediately from the Vatican or Alexandrian text, would exhibit this treatise to us in a purer form."8

VIII. The book of BARUCH is not extant in Hebrew, and only in Greek and Syriac; but in what language it was

De Jesu Siracidæ Ecclesiastico Commentarius. 4to. Riga, 1792.
Bretschneider, Liber Jesu Siracida. Proleg. pp. 10-32.

• Christian Remembrancer, May, 1827, p. 262. Addison has recorded his opinion, that "the little apocryphal treatise, entitled the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, would be regarded by our modern wits as one of the most shining tracts of morality that is extant, if it appeared under the name of a Confucius, or of any celebrated Grecian philosopher." Spectator, No. 68.

Bishop Lowth's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 177.
Christian Remembrancer, vol. ix. p. 263.

originally written, it is now impossible to ascertain. It is equally uncertain by whom this book was written, and whether it contains any matters historically true, or whether the whole is a fiction. Grotius is of opinion that it is an entire fiction, and that it was composed by some Hellenistic Jew under the name of Baruch. In the Vulgate version it is placed after the Lamentations of Jeremiah; but it was never considered as a canonical book by the Jews, though, in the earliest ages of Christianity, it was cited and read as a production entitled to credit. The principal subject of the book is an epistle, pretended to be sent by Jehoiakim and the cap. tive Jews in Babylon, to their brethren in Judah and Jerusalem. The last chapter contains an epistle which falsely bears the name of Jeremiah; there are two versions of this book extant, one in Syriac, and one in Arabic; the Latin translation in the Vulgate is prior to the time of Jerome.

IX. "THE SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN" is placed in the Greek versions of Daniel (both the Septuagint and Theodotion's), and also in the Vulgate Latin version, between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth verses of the third chapter. It does not appear to have ever been extant in Hebrew, and although it has always been admired for the piety of its sentiments, it was never admitted to be canonical, until it was recognised by the council of Trent. The fifteenth verse contains a direct falsehood; for it asserts that there was no prophet at that time, when it is well known that Daniel and Ezekiel both exercised the prophetic ministry in Babylon. This apocryphal fragment is therefore most probably the production of some Hellenistic Jew. The hymn (verses 29. et seq.) resembles the hundred and forty-eighth Psalm. It was introduced into the public formularies of the Christian church very early, and was so approved of by the compilers of our liturgy, that, in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI. it was retained and was used instead of the Te Deum during Lent, though it is now seldom read, except perhaps when the third chapter of the book of Daniel is the first lesson. It is on record, that this hymn was used so early as the third century in the Liturgies of the Chris

tian church.

X. THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA has always been treated with some respect, but has never been considered as canonical, though the council of Trent admitted it into the number of sacred books. It is evidently the work of some Hellenistic Jew, and in the Vulgate version it forms the thirteenth chapter of the book of Daniel, being avowedly translated from Theodotion's Greek version, in which it is placed at the beginning of that book. The Septuagint version of Daniel (which was excluded for Theodotion's, in or soon after the second century) does not contain it, as appears by the Chigi MS., published at Rome in 1772. Lamy and some other modern critics, after Julius Africanus, consider it to be both spurious and fabulous.

18, 19. there is mention of a prayer by the king, which is said to be written "in the Book of the Kings of Israel," and also, "among the sayings of the seers." But it is evident that this composition, which abounds with deeply pious and penitent expressions, cannot be the prayer there alluded to for it never was extant in Hebrew, nor can it be traced to a higher source than the Vulgate Latin version. As it is mentioned by no writer more ancient than the pseudo-Clement, in the pretended apostolical constitutions, which were compiled in the fourth century, it is probable that this prayer was composed by some unknown person, who thought he could supply the loss of the original prayer.

XIII. The two books of MACCABEES are thus denominated, because they relate the patriotic and gallant exploits of Judas Maccabæus and his brethren: they are both admitted into the canon of Scripture by the church of Rome.

1. The FIRST BOOK contains the history of the Jews, from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon, a period of about thirty-four years. Its original language has been greatly controverted. Jerome expressly says that he had seen the original in Hebrew. But this is supposed to have been lost. The title which it then bore, was Sharbit Sar Bene El, which has been variously translated, The Scourge of the Rebels against the Lord, and The Sceptre of the Prince of the Sons of God: a title which is not unsuitable to the character of Judas, who was a valiant commander of the persecuted Israelites. The author of this book is not certainly known; some conjecture that it was written by John Hyrcanus, the son of Simon, who was prince and high-priest of the Jews for nearly thirty years, and who commenced his government at the time when this history ends; by others it is ascribed to one of the Maccabees, and many are of opinion that it was compiled by the Great Synagogue. It is, however, not improbable, that it was composed in the time of John Hyrcanus, when the wars of the Maccabees were terminated, either by Hyrcanus himself, or by some persons employed by him. From the SyroChaldaic (or Hebrew) it was translated into Greek, and thence into Latin. Our English version is made from the Greek. The first book of Maccabees is a most valuable historical monument, written with great accuracy and fidelity, on which more reliance may be placed than on the writings of Josephus, who has borrowed his materials from it, and has frequently mistaken its meaning."

2. The SECOND BOOK OF MACCABEES consists of several pieces compiled by an unknown author. It commences with two epistles sent from the Jews of Jerusalem to those of Alexandria and Egypt, exhorting them to observe the feast of the dedication of the new altar, erected by Judas Maccabæus on his purifying the temple. These epistles, which are confessedly spurious, are followed by the author's preface to his history, which is an abridgment of a larger work, XI. "The History of the Destruction of BEL AND THE compiled by one Jason, an Hellenistic Jew of Cyrene; who DRAGON" was always rejected by the Jewish church: it is wrote in Greek the history of Judas Maccabæus and his not extant either in the Hebrew or the Chaldee language. brethren, and an account of the wars against Antiochus Jerome gives it no better title than that of the fable of Bel Epiphanes, and his son Eupator, in five books. The entire and the Dragon; nor has it obtained more credit with pos- work of Jason has long since perished, and Dr. Prideaux is terity, except with the divines of the council of Trent, who of opinion' that the author of this second book of Maccabees determined it to be a part of the canonical Scriptures. The was an Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria, because he makes a design of this fiction is to render idolatry ridiculous, and to distinction between the temple in Egypt and that at Jerusa exalt the true God; but the author has destroyed the illusion lem, calling the latter "the great temple." This book is by of his fiction by transporting to Babylon the worship of no means equal in accuracy to the first, which it contradicts animals, which was never practised in that country. This in some instances; it is not arranged in chronological order, book forms the fourteenth chapter of Daniel in the Latin and sometimes also it is at variance with the inspired writVulgate; in the Greek it was called the prophecy of Hab-ings. Compare 2 Macc. i. 18. with Ezra iii. 2, 3. and ii. bakuk, the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi; but this is 5-8. with Jer, iii. 16. The second book of Maccabees, evidently false, for that prophet lived before the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and the events pretended to have taken place in this fable are assigned to the time of Cyrus. There are two Greek texts of this fragment, that of the Septuagint, and that found in Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel. The former is the most ancient, and has been translated into Syriac. The Latin and Arabic versions, together with another Syriac translation, have been made from the texts of Theodotion.

XII. "THE PRAYER OF MANASSES, king of Judah, when he was holden captive in Babylon," though not unworthy of the occasion on which it is pretended to have been composed, was never recognised as canonical. It is rejected as spurious even by the church of Rome. In 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1 Wheatley on the Common Prayer, chap. iii. sect. 12. Shepherd on the Common Prayer, p. 231. London, 1796, 8vo.

Of this the reader may see a proof in the paranomasia, or play upon words, which has already been noticed in p. 282. of this volume."

therefore, must be read with great caution. It contains the history of about fifteen years, from the execution of the commission of Heliodorus, who was sent by Seleucus to bring away the treasures of the temple, to the victory ob tained by Judas Maccabæus over Nicanor, that is, from the year of the world 3828 to 3843. Two ancient translations of this book are extant, one in Syriac, the other in Latin; both are prior to the time of Jerome, and both miserably executed. The version in our Bibles was executed from the Greek.

Hieron. Prolog, Galeat, sive Præf. in Lib. Regum.

Dr. Kennicott, however, in his "Dissertatio Generalis," cites two manuscripts, one of which, No. 474., is preserved at Rome, "Libr. Maccab. Chaldaice," written early in the thirteenth century; a second, No. 613, existing at Hamburgh, "Libr. Maccab. Hebraice," written in the year 1448. Dr. Cotton's Five Books of Maccabees, p. xxi. Prideaux's Connection. vol. ii. pp. 185, 186. Michaelis, Introd. to New Test. vol. i. p. 71. Connection, vol. ii. pp. 186, 187.