Note 36 — Chapter VI · 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.
Reading edition
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.