What is the book of Sirach?

The name given to those Books which were attached to the MSS copies of the LXX, but which do not form a part of the canon of scripture. The term itself signifies, 'hidden,' 'secret,' 'occult;' and, as to any pretence of being a part of scripture, they must be described as 'spurious.' There are such writings connected with both the Old and the New Testament, but generally speaking the term 'Apocrypha' refers to the O.T. (for those connected with the N. Test. see APOSTOLIC FATHERS. The O.T. books are: 1 I. Esdras. 2 II. Esdras. 3 Tobit. 4 Judith. 5 Chapters of Esther, not found in the Hebrew nor Chaldee. 6 Wisdom of Solomon. 7 Jesus, son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus; quoted Ecclus. 8 Baruch, including the Epistle of Jeremiah. 9 Song of the Three Holy Children 10 The History of Susanna. 11 Bel and the Dragon. 12 Prayer of Manasseh. 13 I. Maccabees. 14 II. Maccabees.

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

Every kind. One positive reason is, that it never was in Hebrew at all; and as to outward testimony, it never was classed with the Scriptures by the Jews. But to have the real knowledge of the Scripture authority, you must have divine teaching. The division the Jews made of the Scriptures, was into, the law, the prophets, and the psalms. Josephus tells us there were prophets after the time of Artaxerxes (i.e., Malachi's time), but they were not of the same authority as those who went before. That, of course, is not a divine way of knowing about it. It is said that the Song of Sirach was translated into Hebrew, but it was not. The best way to determine about such books is to look into them. Take Maccabees, and you will find something to this effect: "I have done my best to make an epitome of the five books of such a man, for it is very tedious to have too much to read, and if I have done it well, then it is worthy of the matter," and so on. Think of saying that is inspired!

To the final stage in the history of the Canon before Christian times allusion is probably made in the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus, already referred to. It will of course remind the reader of Luke 24:44. It connects itself with Josephus' account of the canonical Books, which it is well to state here, although in historical order it belongs to a later section: it places us at the end of the first Christian century.

The first question that presents itself in this inquiry is, the usual name of the collective revelation of God of which the Old Testament does but form a part. The common designation of the whole of sacred Scripture is 'The Bible,' a name derived from ecclesiastical Latin, and meaning 'The Book.' Plumptre says, 'Mediaeval Latin mistook the neuter plural [Biblia] for a feminine singular,' which appears to have been first used in the thirteenth century. The first portion of this, with which we are now concerned, regularly called 'The Old Testament,' we find in the interval between the close of the Hebrew Canon and the Birth of Christ described by 'The Law, and the Prophets, and the rest of the Books' (Prologue to Ecclesiasticus or Book of Jesus son of Sirach).

Origen, also of the third century, though acquainted with the Hebrew Canon, did not depart from the Alexandrian Bible. He refers to the books of the Maccabees as possessed of 'scriptural authority,' quotes Wisdom and Tobit, calls Ecclesiasticus 'the Divine Word,' and so on.

You quote Tobias also: that is, the Apocrypha. This is one of the terrible sins of Rome. She has pretended to authenticate as scripture what was never owned as such till the middle of the sixteenth century, and what the very person who made the translation which she declares to be authentic states not to be scripture at all. Over and over again he (Jerome) declares there are twenty-two books, excluding thus the Apocrypha from the canon; and in particular, in his preface to Tobias, says it was not in the Hebrew scriptures. In his preface to the Books of Solomon he says, "As, therefore, the church reads, indeed, Judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them among canonical scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." He refers to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Athanasius reckons them up also, twenty-two, both in the Synopsis (if it be his, for some have doubted it), and in the fragment of the Festal epistle, giving them, he says, because some would dare to mix apocryphal books with divine scriptures, and speaking of Tobias and others as read, but not canonical.

However, to our proofs. The first that Milner notices is drawn from the second book of Maccabees. He tells us that he has a right to consider these books as scripture, because the Catholic church so considers them. Now, first, I do not admit the Roman system to be the Catholic church: but I leave this till we come to that question. But no church ever took them to be canonical scripture for fifteen hundred years. Augustine declares the Apocryphal books inferior to the other scripture, and Jerome, who was the translator of the Bible at the request of Pope Damasus, and whose translation, called the Vulgate, is declared authentic by the Council of Trent, and so held by all Romanists, says in his preface that Judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, the church indeed reads, but does not receive them among canonical scriptures. (Preface to the books of Solomon). So Ruffinus (published with Cyprian's works). He gives the list of canonical scriptures, exactly as Protestants receive them, and not merely as his opinion, but declaring that they are the books which, according to the tradition of the ancients, are believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. And having given the list, he adds: these are what the Fathers have included in the canon. But however, he adds, it is to be known that there are also other books, now called Apocrypha; and adds, which all they have willed should be read in the churches, but not anything be produced out of them to confirm as authority anything concerning the faith. So Jerome: thus also these two volumes the church reads for edification of the people, but not as an authority to confirm ecclesiastical dogmas. So Athanasius, or the author of the Synopsis ascribed to him, says — they were not put in the canon, but read to the catechumens; and in his festal letter again he gives the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, pronouncing the strongest blame on those who might pretend any others were scripture (1 (62) 767).

It is indeed surprising to find human writings attached to the scriptures, and that they were read in the churches. The formation of the canon of scripture was doubtless a work of time, and great respect was naturally shewn to those who had been companions of the apostles; but it must not be forgotten that long after that canon was settled, passages from apocryphal books were read in churches, as indeed in the Established Church of England — read, as the Prayer Book says, "for example of life and instruction of manners," but not "to establish any doctrine." And this, after so many years, is more surprising than that it should have been done before the canon was settled.

At this time we meet with the expression 'ecclesiastical books.' It was applied to those books which, though regarded as not inspired, were considered worthy of perusal: they did in fact contribute to the Church lectionaries. The ancient MSS. of the LXX, as we have said, are evidence of the practice (cf. chap. 4 § 3). To this class appear to have been consigned the books of the LXX called in the Talmud 'extraneous' (ibid. 2).