_THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE BOOKS
OF ECCLESIASTICUS AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.
THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA, AND THE MISCHIEF
OF NEGLECTING IT._
"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to
all liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But
let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like
the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that
man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded
man, unstable in all his ways."--ST. JAMES i. 5-8.
The previous section led us to the question as to the relation of this
Epistle to certain Christian writings, and in particular to the
Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and to the First Epistle of
St. Peter. The present section, combined with the preceding one,
raises a similar question--the relation of our Epistle to certain
Jewish writings, and especially the Books of Ecclesiasticus and the
Wisdom of Solomon.
The two sets of questions are not parallel. In the former case, even
if we could determine that the writer of one Epistle had certainly
seen the Epistle of the other, we should still be uncertain as to
which had written first. Here, if the similarity is found to be too
great to be accounted for by common influences acting upon both
writers, and we are compelled to suppose that one has made use of the
writing of the other, there cannot be any doubt as to the side on
which the obligation lies. The Book of Ecclesiasticus certainly, and
the Book of Wisdom possibly, had come into circulation long before
St. James was born. And if, with some of the latest writers[36] on the
subject, we place the Book of Wisdom as late as A.D. 40, it
nevertheless was written in plenty of time for St. James to have
become acquainted with it before he wrote his Epistle. Although some
doubts have been expressed on the subject, the number of similarities,
both of thought and expression, between the Epistle of St. James and
Ecclesiasticus is too great to be reasonably accounted for without the
supposition that St. James was not only acquainted with the book, but
fond of its contents. And it is to be remembered, in forming an
opinion on the subject, that there is nothing intrinsically improbable
in the supposition that St. James had read Ecclesiasticus. Indeed, the
improbability would rather be the other way. Even if there were no
coincidences of ideas and language between our Epistle and
Ecclesiasticus, we know enough about St. James and about the
circulation of Ecclesiasticus to say that he was likely to become
acquainted with it. As Dr. Salmon remarks on the use of the Apocrypha
generally, "The books we know as Apocrypha are nearly all earlier than
the New Testament writers, _who could not well have been ignorant of
them_; and therefore coincidences between the former and the latter
are not likely to have been the result of mere accident."[37]
But it will be worth while to quote a decided expression of opinion,
on each side of the question immediately before us, from the writings
of scholars who are certainly well qualified to give a decided
opinion. On the one hand, Bernhard Weiss says, "It has been
incorrectly held by most that the author adheres very closely to Jesus
Sirach.... But it must be distinctly denied that there is anywhere an
echo of the Book of Wisdom."[38] On the other hand, Dr. Edersheim,
after pointing out the parallel between Ecclus. xii. 10, 11, and James
v. 3, concludes, "In view of all this it _cannot be doubted_ that both
the simile and the expression of it in the Epistle of St. James were
derived from Ecclesiasticus." And then he gives some more coincidences
between the two writings, and sums up thus: "But if the result is to
_prove beyond doubt_ the familiarity of St. James with a book which at
the time was evidently in wide circulation, it exhibits with even
greater clearness the immense spiritual difference between the
standpoint occupied in Ecclesiasticus and that in the Epistle of
St. James."[39] And Archdeacon Farrar quotes with approval an estimate
that St. James "alludes more or less directly to the Book of the
Wisdom of Solomon at least five times, but to the Book of
Ecclesiasticus more than fifteen times.... The fact is the more
striking because in other respects St. James shows no sympathy with
Alexandrian speculations. There is not in him the faintest tinge of
Philonian philosophy; on the contrary, he belongs in a marked degree
to the school of Jerusalem. He is a thorough Hebraiser, a typical
Judaist. All his thoughts and phrases move normally in the Palestinian
sphere. This is a curious and almost unnoticed phenomenon. The
"sapiential literature" of the Old Testament was the _least_
specifically Israelite. It was the direct precursor of Alexandrian
morals. It deals with mankind, and not with the Jew. Yet St. James,
who shows so much partiality for this literature, is of all the
writers of the New Testament the least Alexandrian, and the most
Judaic."[40]
Let us endeavour to form an opinion for ourselves; and the only way in
which to do this with thoroughness is to place side by side, in the
original Greek, the passages in which there seems to be coincidence
between the two writers. Want of space prevents this from being done
here. But some of the most striking coincidences shall be placed in
parallel columns, and where the coincidence is inadequately
represented by the English Version the Greek shall be given also.
Other coincidences, which are not drawn out in full, will be added, to
enable students who care to examine the evidence more in detail to do
so without much trouble. Two Bibles, or, still better, a Septuagint
and a Greek Testament, will serve the purpose of parallel columns.
It will be found that by far the greater number of coincidences occur
in the first chapter, a fact which suggests the conjecture that
St. James had been reading Ecclesiasticus shortly before he began to
write. In the middle of the Epistle there is very little that strongly
recalls the son of Sirach. In the last chapter there are one or two
striking parallels; but by far the larger proportion is in the first
chapter.
ECCLESIASTICUS. ST. JAMES.
1. A patient man will bear for a Count it all joy, my brethren,
time, and afterward joy shall when ye fall into manifold
spring up unto him (i. 23). temptations (πειρασμοῖς), knowing
that the proof (τὸ δοκίμιον)
My son, if thou come to serve the of your faith worketh patience.
Lord, prepare thy soul for And let patience have her perfect
temptation (πειρασμόν). Set thy work, that ye may be perfect
heart aright, and constantly and entire, lacking in nothing
endure.... Whatsoever is brought (i. 2-4).
upon thee take cheerfully, and be
patient when thou art changed to a Blessed is the man that endureth
low estate. For gold is tried temptation (πειρασμόν);
(δοκιμάζεται) in the fire, and for when he hath been approved
acceptable men in the furnace of (δόκιμος γενόμενος), he shall
adversity (ii. 1-5). receive the crown of life (i. 12).
2. If thou desire wisdom But if any of you lacketh
(σοφίαν), keep the commandments, wisdom (σοφίαν), let him ask
and the Lord shall give her unto of God, who giveth to all men
thee (i. 26). liberally, and upbraideth not
(μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος); and it shall
I desired wisdom (σοφίαν) openly be given him (i. 5).
in my prayer.... The Lord hath
given me a tongue for my reward
(li. 13, 22).
Thy desire for wisdom (σοφίας)
shall be given thee (vi. 37. Comp.
xliii. 33). [A fool] will give
little, and will upbraid
(ὀνειδίσει) much (xx. 15).
After thou hast given, upbraid
(ὀνείδιζε) not (xli. 22. Comp.
xviii. 18).
3. Distrust not the fear of the But let him ask in faith,
Lord; and come not unto Him with a nothing doubting: for he that
double heart (i. 28). doubteth is like the surge of
the sea driven by the wind and
Woe be to fearful hearts, and faint tossed. For let not that man
hands, and the sinner that goeth think that he shall receive
two ways (ii. 12). anything of the Lord; a
double-minded man, unstable in all
Be not faint-hearted when thou his ways (i. 6-8. Comp. iv. 8).
makest thy prayer (vii. 10. Comp.
xxxiii. 2; xxxv. 16, 17).
4. Exalt not thyself, lest thou But let the brother of low
fall, and bring dishonour upon thy degree glory in his high estate;
soul (i. 30). and the rich in that he is made
low (i. 9, 10).
The greater thou art, the more
humble thyself, and thou shalt find
favour before the Lord (iii. 18.
Comp. xxxi. 1-9).
5. Say not thou, It is through the Let no man say, when he is
Lord that I fell away: for thou tempted, I am tempted of God:
oughtest not to do the things that for God cannot be tempted
He hateth. Say not thou, He hath with evil, and He Himself
caused me to err: for He hath no tempteth no man (i. 13).
need of the sinful man (xv. 11, 12).
6. Be swift in thy listening Let every man be swift to hear
(ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου); and (ταχὺς εὶς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι), slow
with patience give answer (v. 11). to speak, slow to wrath (i. 19).
7. Thou shalt be to him as one that He is like unto a man beholding
hath wiped a mirror (ἔσοπτρον), his natural face in a mirror (ἐν
and shalt know that it is not ἐσόπτρῳ).... Your gold and your
rusted (κατίωται) for ever silver are rusted (κατίωται);
(xii. 11). and their rust (ἰός) shall
be a testimony against you
Like as bronze rusteth (ἰοῦται), (i. 23; v. 3).
so is his wickedness (xii. 10).
Lose money through a brother and a
friend, and let it not rust
(ἰωθήτω) under the stone unto
loss (xxix. 10).
8. He that looketh in He that looketh into
(ὁ παρακύπτων) through her (ὁ παρακύψας) the perfect
windows, _i.e._ the windows of law (i. 25).
wisdom (xiv. 23).
A fool peepeth in (παρακύπτει)
at the door (xxi. 23).
9. A prey of lions are wild asses But ye have dishonoured the poor
in the wilderness; so the fodder of man (τὸν πτωχόν). Do not the
the rich are the poor (οὕτω νομαὶ rich (οἱ πλούσιοι) oppress you,
πλουσίων πτωχοί: xiii. 19. Comp. and themselves drag you before the
xiii. 3, 17, 18). judgment-seats? (ii. 6).
It will be observed that of these nine examples all come out of the
first two chapters of St. James, and six are from the first two
chapters of Ecclesiasticus. This fact is worth considering in
estimating the probabilities of St. James being under the influence of
this earlier and popular book. Owing to recent reading, or some other
cause, he seems to have been specially familiar with the opening
chapters of Ecclesiasticus. Probably most persons who study these
coincidences will be of the opinion that Bernhard Weiss is needlessly
cautious and sceptical when he refuses to assent to the common opinion
that in some portions of the Epistle St. James closely follows the
Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach. The strongest coincidence is the
seventh in the table. The word for "to rust" (κατιόω) occurs nowhere
else either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, and the
passages in Ecclesiasticus and St. James "are the only Biblical
passages in which the figure of rust as affecting unused silver and
gold occurs" (Edersheim). The fifth instance is also very striking.
Let us now look at some of the coincidences between the Book of the
Wisdom of Solomon and the Epistle of St. James.
WISDOM. ST. JAMES.
1. The hope of the ungodly is like He that doubteth is like the surge
thistle-down carried away by the of the sea driven by the wind and
wind; like a thin froth that is tossed.... As the flower of the
driven away by the blast, and like grass he shall pass away.... So
smoke is dispersed by the wind also shall the rich man fade away
(v. 14. Comp. μαρανθῆναι in (μαρανθήσεται) in his ways
ii. 8). (i. 6, 10, 11).
2. In eternity it weareth a crown When he hath been approved he shall
and triumpheth (iv. 2). receive the crown of life, which
the Lord promised to them that love
Him (i. 12).
3. The alterations of the solstices With whom can be no variation,
and the change of seasons (τροπῶν neither shadow of turning (παρ'
ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς καιρῶν: ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς
vii. 18). ἀποσκίασμα: i. 17).
4. Let us oppress Ye have dishonoured the poor man.
(καταδυναστεύσωμεν) the poor Do not the rich oppress
righteous man.... Let us examine (καταδυναστεύουσιν) you, and
him with despitefulness and torture themselves drag you before the
(ii. 10, 19). judgment-seats? (ii. 6).
5. For the lowest is pardonable by For judgment is without mercy to
mercy; but mighty men shall be him that hath showed no mercy:
mightily chastised (vi. 6). mercy glorieth against judgment
(ii. 13).
6. What hath pride profited us? or Go to now, ye that say, To-day or
what good hath riches with our to-morrow we will go into this
vaunting (ἀλαζονείας) brought us? city, and spend a year there, and
All those things are passed away trade and get gain: whereas ye know
like a shadow, and as a post that not what shall be on the morrow.
hasted by, etc. etc.; even so we, What is your life? For ye are a
as soon as we were born, came to an vapour, that appeareth for a little
end" (v. 8-14). time, and then vanisheth away....
But now ye glory in your vauntings
(ἀλαζονίαις): all such glorying
is evil (iv. 13-16).
7. Let us lie in wait for the Ye have condemned (κατεδικάσατε),
righteous (τὸν δίκαιον).... Let ye have killed the righteous one
us condemn him (καταδικάσωμεν) (τὸν δίκαιον); he doth not resist
with a shameful death (ii. 12, 20). you (v. 6).
It will at once be perceived that these parallels are neither so
numerous nor so convincing as those which have been pointed out
between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle of St. James; but they are
sufficient to make a _primâ facie_ case of considerable probability,
whatever date we assign to the Book of Wisdom. This probability is
strengthened by the fact that this book, with the rest of the
Apocrypha or deutero-canonical writings, constituted to a large extent
the _religious literature of the Jews of the Dispersion_; and
therefore in writing to such Jews St. James would be likely to make
conscious allusions to writings with which his hearers would be sure
to be familiar; a consideration which strengthens the case as regards
the coincidences with Ecclesiasticus, as well as regards those with
the Wisdom of Solomon. Even if the probability as to the Alexandrian
origin of Wisdom were a certainty, and if the conjectural date A.D. 40
were established, there would be nothing surprising in its becoming
well known in Jerusalem within twenty years of its production. It is,
therefore, far too strong an assertion when Weiss declares that "it
must be distinctly denied that there is anywhere [in the Epistle of
St. James] an echo of the Book of Wisdom." All that one can safely say
is that the evidence for his acquaintance with the book does not
approach to proof.
But the use of these two books of the Apocrypha by writers in the New
Testament does not depend upon the question whether St. James makes
use of them or not. If this were the place to do it, it might be shown
that other coincidences, both of language and thought, far too
numerous and too strong to be all of them accidental, occur in the
writings of St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John.[41] Such things also
occur outside the New Testament in the Epistles of Clement and of
Barnabas; while Clement of Alexandria frequently quotes Ecclesiasticus
with the introductory formula, "The Scripture saith."
These facts go a long way towards proving that the neglect of the
Apocrypha which is so prevalent among ourselves is a thing which
cannot be defended, either by an appeal to Scripture or by the
practice of the primitive Church; for both the one and the other show
a great respect for these deutero-canonical writings. That the New
Lectionary omits a good deal of what used to be read publicly in
church is not a thing to be lamented. We gladly sacrifice portions of
the Apocrypha in order to obtain more of Ezekiel and Revelation. It is
the neglect of them in private reading that is so much to be deplored.
Passages which are too grotesque and too unspiritual to be edifying
when read to a mixed congregation are nevertheless full of
instruction, and throw most valuable light both on the Old and on the
New Testament. The Apocryphal writings, instead of being a worthless
interpolation between the Old Testament and the New, like a block of
paltry buildings disfiguring two noble edifices, are among our best
means of understanding how the Old Testament led up to the New, and
prepared the way for it. They show us the Jewish mind under the
combined influences of Jewish Scriptures, Gentile culture, and new
phases of political life, and being gradually brought into the
condition in which it either fiercely opposed or ardently accepted the
teaching of Christ and His Apostles. A huge chasm yawns between
Judaism as we leave it at the close of the Old Testament canon, and as
we find it at the beginning of the Gospel history; and we have no
better material with which to bridge the chasm than the writings of
the Apocrypha. This is well brought out, not only in the commentary on
the Apocrypha already quoted more than once, but also in a valuable
review of the commentary from which some of what follows is taken.[42]
The neglect of the Apocrypha has not been by any means entirely
accidental. It is partly the result of a deliberate protest against
the action of the Council of Trent in placing these books on a level
with the books of the Old and New Testament. In the seventeenth
century we find the learned John Lightfoot writing, "Thus sweetly and
nearly should the two Testaments join together, and thus Divinely
should they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth
thrust in between." And the fact that many people are now unable to
recognize or appreciate an allusion to the Apocrypha is by no means
the most serious result of this common neglect of its contents.
Appreciation of the Bible in general, and especially of those books in
which the Old and New Testaments come most in contact, is materially
diminished in consequence. The Apocrypha is not a barrier, but a
bridge; it does not separate, but unite the two Covenants. What
thoughtful reader can pass from the Old to the New Testament without
feeling that he has entered another world? He is still in Palestine,
still among the Jews; but how different from the Palestine and the
Judaism of Ezra, and Nehemiah, and Malachi! He "finds mention of
persons, and sects, and schools of which he can find no trace in the
Old Testament. He comes upon beliefs and opinions for which the
earlier canon does not even furnish a clue. He discovers institutions
long settled, and dominating the religious life of the people, of
which the Old Testament supplies not even the name. He finds popular
ideas, religious terms and phrases in current use wholly unlike those
of ancient psalmists and prophets." And there is no literature that
can explain all these changes to him either so surely or so fully as
the Apocrypha. It supplies instances of the early use of New Testament
words, of old words in new senses. It throws light upon the growth of
the popular conception of the Messiah. It illuminates still more the
development of the doctrine of the Logos. Above all, it helps us to
see something of the evolution of that strange religious system which
became the raw material out of which the special doctrines of
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were formed, and which had a
powerful influence upon Christianity itself.
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.