Skip to main content

Full text of "The canon of the Old Testament; an essay on the gradual growth and formation of the Hebrew canon of Scripture"

See other formats 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

%eceived         DEC  12  1892     .  189 

^Accessions  No.  liCthStj-  .  Class  No. 


i-^i  c 


THE    CANON 


OLD    TESTAMENT 


Nee  temere  nee  tttnide 

'Canon  non  uno,  quod  dicunt,  ache  ab  hominibus,  sed paulatim 
r  Deo,  animorum  ternporiimqtie  rectore,  productns  est  ' 


THE    CANON 


OLD    TESTAMENT 


AN  ESSAY  ON 

THE  GRADUAL  GROWTH  AND  FORMATION  OF 

THE  HEBREW  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE 


HERBERT    EDWARD    RYLE,    B.D. 

HULSEAN  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY 

PROFESSORIAL  FELLOW  OF  KING'S  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE 

AND    EXAMINING    CHAPLAIN   TO    THE    LORD    BISHOP    OF    RIPON 


HonUott 
MACMILLAN    AND    CO. 

J^D  NEW  YORK 
1892 

All  rights  reserved'\ 


ifa  b  ^Lf 


3^ 


XpH  jLiev  TOi  re  Tov  ana6  napa6e6ajuevov  tou  KTioavTog  tov 
KoojLiov  eivai  Taurag  rag  fpacpdg  neneloBai,  on  ooa  nepi 
THC  KTiaeoog  dnavxci  toIq  ^htouoi  tov  nepi  auTHC  Aofov, 
TQUxa  KOI  nepi  tcov  rpa9(jov.     Origen. 


RIGHT    REVEREND    WILLIAM   BOYD    CARPENTER 
D.D. 

LORD    BISHOP    OF    RIPON 

THIS    BOOK    IS    DEDICATED 

IN    GRATEFUL   ACKNOWLEDGMENT   OF   MUCH 

PERSONAL    KINDNESS   AND   SYMPATHY 

BY   ONE   OF   HIS   CHAPLAINS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/canonofoldtestamOOrylerich 


^^  OP  thb"^C^^ 

PREFACE 

Most  students  of  the  Bible  know  something  about 
the  history  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
about  the  process  by  which  its  Hmits  were  gradually 
determined.  Few,  by  comparison,  are  aware  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  passed  through  a  very 
similar  course  of  development.  In  the  present  essay 
the  attempt  is  made  to  sketch  the  history  of  this 
gradual  growth.  It  is  but  a  slight  contribution  to  the 
study  of  a  large  and  difficult  subject.  But,  inadequate 
though  it  is,  I  venture  to  hope  its  appearance  may  be 
welcome  to  some  students,  who  have  wished  to  obtain 
a  more  connected  view  of  the  historical  process  to 
which  we  owe  the  formation  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  of 
Scripture. 

That  the  view  which  is  here  presented  should  differ 
widely  in  certain  respects  from  that  of  traditional 
opinion,  will  be  no  sort  of  a  surprise  to  those  who 
have  made  themselves  acquainted  with  modern  Biblical 
research.     Restricting  myself  to  the  limits  which  appear 


VIU  PREFACE. 

now  to  be  generally  recognised  by  the  best  scholars,  I 
have  sought  to  reap  the  full  advantage  of  the  addi- 
tional evidence  which  the  results  of  modern  criticism 
have  placed  at  our  disposal.  But  it  will  be  understood 
that  the  enquiry  treats  of  the  Sacred  Collection  as  a 
whole,  and  that  questions  dealing  with  details  of 
authorship,  date,  and  structure  are  only  touched  upon 
so  far  as  they  help  to  throw  light  upon  the  admission  of 
the  individual  books,  or  groups  of  books,  into  the  Canon 
of  Holy  Scripture. 

There  is  no  need,  in  the  present  day,  to  'apologize' 
for  such  use  of  Biblical  criticism.  There  are,  no  doubt, 
some  who  would  still  include  all  Biblical  critics  under 
the  same  sweeping  charge  of  repudiating  Revelation 
and  denying  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture.  But  they  thus 
show  so  plainly  either  their  want  of  acquaintance  with 
the  literature  of  Christian  criticism  or  their  disinclination 
to  distinguish  between  the  work  of  Christian  scholars  and 
that  of  avowed  antagonists  to  religion,  that  the  complete 
misapprehension  under  which  they  labour  is  not  likely 
to  be  widely  shared,  and  only  calls  for  the  sincere 
expression  of  a  charitable  regret. 

The  Church  is  demanding  a  courageous  restatement 
of  those  facts  upon  which  modern  historical  criticism 
has  thrown  new  light.  If,  in  the  attempt  to  meet  this 
demand,  the  Christian  scholarship  of  the  present  gene- 
ration should  err  through  rashness,  love  of  change,  or 
inaccuracy  of  observation,  the  Christian  scholarship  of 
another  generation  will  repair  the  error.  Progress 
towards  the  truth  must  be  made.     But  it  will  not  be 


I 


PREFACE.  ix 

made  without  many  a  stumble.  Still,  if  it  is  progress, 
it  is  not  stagnation  nor  self-satisfied  repose.  Those  who 
have  gone  before  us  have  made  their  mistakes  (see 
Excursus  A),  and  we  shall  not  enjoy  an  immunity  from 
error.  But  we  shall  at  least,  I  trust,  endeavour  to 
make  use  of  the  gift  with  which  God  has  enriched  our 
age,  the  gift  of  historical  criticism,  to  the  very  utmost  of 
our  power,  so  that  the  Church  may  be  found  .worthy  of 
the  responsibility  which  the  possession  of  such  a  gift 
entails.  If  we  are  true  to  our  belief  in  the  presence  and 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  our  midst,  we  need 
never  doubt  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  being  guided — 
even  through  frequent  failure — into  a  fuller  knowledge 
of  the  truth. 

So  far  as  the  present  essay  is  concerned,  criticism,  it 
may  gratefully  be  acknowledged,  enables  us  to  recog- 
nise the  operation  of  the  Divine  Love  in  the  traces  of 
that  gradual  growth,  by  which  the  limits  of  the  inspired 
collection  were  expanded  to  meet  the  actual  needs  of 
the  Chosen  People.  It  is  the  history  of  no  sudden 
creation  or  instantaneous  acquisition,  but  of  a  slow  de- 
velopment in  the  human  recognition  of  the  Divine 
message  which  was  conveyed  through  the  varied 
writings  of  the  Old  Covenant.  The  measure  of  the 
completeness  of  the  Canon  had  scarcely  been  reached, 
when  *  the  fulness  of  the  time  came.'  The  close  of 
the  Hebrew  Canon  brings  us  to  the  threshold  of  the 
Christian  Church.  The  history  of  the  Canon,  like  the 
teaching  of  its  inspired  contents,  leads  us  into  the  very 
presence  of  Him  in  Whom  alone  we  have  the  fulfilment 


X  PREFACE. 

and  the  interpretation  of  the  Old   Testament,  and  the 
one  perfect  sanction  of  its  use. 

In  order  to  record  my  obligations  to  other  writers,  I 
have  drawn  up  a  list  of  the  books  which  I  have  most 
frequently  used.  I  ought  perhaps  to  state  that  Prof. 
Wildeboer's  book  came  into  my  hands  after  I  had 
already  completed  the  main  outline  of  the  work ;  but  I 
gratefully  acknowledge  the  help  which  his  treatise  has 
rendered  me.  Prof.  Buhl's  important  work  did  not 
appear  until  I  had  almost  completed  the  present  volume. 
In  the  case  of  both  these  works,  the  student  will  find 
them  very  valuable  for  purposes  of  reference,  but  scarcely 
so  well  adapted  for  purposes  of  continuous  reading. 

To  Canon  Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  importance  of  which  can  hardly 
be  over-estimated,  I  have  been  able  to  make  occasional 
references,  while  correcting  the  sheets  for  the  press.  It 
is  a  pleasure  to  feel  that  the  results  of  Biblical  criticism, 
a  knowledge  of  which  I  have  often  been  obliged  to  pre- 
suppose, have  thus  been  rendered  accessible  to  English 
students  in  so  admirable  a  form. 

Prof  Kirkpatrick's  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment appeared  too  late  for  me  to  make  use  of  it.  But 
I  have  added  these  useful  lectures  to  the  list  of  books 
which  is  placed  after  the  '  Contents.' 

To  Dr.  Hort,  who  read  these  pages  in  proof,  I  am 
most  grateful  for  numerous  suggestions  and  friendly 
criticisms,  of  which  I  have  been  glad  to  avail  myself,  as 
far  as  has  been  possible. 


PREFACE.  XI 

In  conclusion,  I  would  humbly  express  the  hope  that 
the  present  work,  with  all  its  shortcomings,  may  enable 
the  reader  to  realize,  in  however  slight  a  degree,  that 
the  growth  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
bound  up  with  the  life  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  with 
the  discipline  of  preparation  for  the  coming  of  Christ. 


HERBERT  E.  RYLE. 


Meadowcroft, 
Cambridge. 
The  Festival  of  the  Epiphany,  1892. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION. 

The   Canon    of  the   Old   Testament,   how   formed. —  External 

•  evidence    wanting. — Legend  :    Jewish    and    Christian. — Popular 

assumption. — Speculation. — Analogy  of  N.  T.   Canon. — Internal 

Evidence.^ — The  '  Tripartite  Division  of  Books  ' ;   '  the  Law,  the 

Prophets  and  the  Writings  '  :  their  contents 

CHAPTER  I. 
The  Preparation  for  a  Canon. 

The  human  limitations  of  the  Divine  Message. — A  preparation 
for  a  Canon  to  be  presupposed. — Hebrew  Literature  existing 
before  Hebrew  Canon. — Three  stages  :  formation,  redaction, 
selection. — Collections  of  Hebrew  Writings  :  (i)  Songs,  early 
national  collections — transmitted  orally — their  religious  pur- 
pose.— (2)  Laws  :  the  Decalogue — the  Book  of  the  Covenant — 
the  Law  of  Holiness — the  Deuteronomic  Laws — the  Priestly 
Laws. — Semitic  Institutions— the  Spirit  of  Israelite  Law  new 
rather  than  the  system — Priestly  tradition — Priestly  rules  known 
before  codified — Purpose  of  collections  of  laws — *  the  Law  of 
Moses ' — *  Torah.' — (3)  History  :  Official  Records — Compilation — 
Oral  Tradition — Prophetic  purpose  of  Narratives. — (4)  Prophecy  : 
Profession  of  Prophets — the  work  of  leading  Prophets — Sayings 
of  Prophets,  repeated  by  memory,  condensed,  written — Value  of 
written  Prophecy — Preservation  of  writings. — Tradition  of  laws 
kept  in  sanctuary. — Two  Tables  of  Stone. — the  Testimony  at  the 
coronation  of  Joash. — 2  Kings  xi.  12  discussed       .... 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   II. 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Canon. 

Discovery  of  '  the  Book  of  the  Law,'  621  b.  c. — Its  influence, — 
Its  contents,  not  whole  Pentateuch,  but  collection  of  Deuteronomic 
Law.— (i)  Similarity  to  Deut. — Denunciatory  passages.— Reforms 
effected  through  '  the  Book  of  the  Law.'— Called  '  Book  of  the 
Covenant.' — (2)  Evidence  of  Books  of  Kings. — Conclusion. — Pre- 
vious history. — Not  a  forgery,  unknown  before  Seventh  Cent. — 
Is.  xix.  19.— Possible  date.— Deuteronomic  Laws,  not  all  repetition 
of  old,  nor  all  new.— Chief  characteristic— Crisis  in  Seventh 
Cent. — A  people's,  not  a  priest's,  book. — Secret  of  its  power. — 
Its  opportuneness. —  Its  historic  significance 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Canon  {continued). 

'  The  Book  of  the  Law,'  influence  of,  on  individuals. — Distinctive 
in  style  and  in  treatment  of  national  questions. — Influence  of, 
upon  Jeremiah,  upon  Book  of  Kings. — But  Prophet's  voice  pre- 
ferred to  any  sacred  writing. — 'Book  of  the  Law'  insufficient. — 
Amplified  in  Sixth  Cent.  b.  c. — Israelite  History  and  the  Jewish 
Exile. — Conjectured  acceptance  of  joint  narrative  and  law. — Com- 
pilation of  Priestly  Laws  during  Exile. — Ezekiel  and  Priestly 
Laws. — Priestly  Laws  codified,  not  published        ....         63 

CHAPTER   IV. 
The  Completion  of  the  First  Canon  :  The  Law. 

The  Return  from  the  Exile. — People  ignorant  of  complete  code 
of  law. — Its  possession,  a  new  power. — Ezra,  not  the  writer  of 
the  Priestly  Laws. — Possibly  their  promulgator  in  Jerusalem. — 
Ezra  and  the  Law. — A  crisis. — Priestly  opposition.  —  Ezra's 
Book  of  the  Law,  our  Pentateuch. — Its  position,  at  first,  un- 
defined.— Possible  later  insertions,  respecting  burnt-offering, 
temple  tax,  tithe,  Levitical  service. — Novelties  excluded. — Uni- 
form text  necessary. — First  Hebrew  Canon  =  Pentateuch. — 
Position  of  Torah. — Evidence  of  Post-Exilic  Scripture,  later  Jew- 
ish literature.  Synagogue  usage,  title  of  Law.' — Direct  evidence 
of  Samaritan  Pentateuch. — First  Canon  determined  before  432  B.C.         75 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Second  Canon,  or  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 

The  Canon  of  '  the  Law  '  insufficient. —  Prophecy  and  the  Law. 
— The  '  Nebiim  '  group. — (I.)  Causes  of  Selection  :  Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  Kings. — Distinctive  features. — Witness  of  Prophets 
often  unpopular. — Change  produced  by  Exile  and  Return. — In- 
creased honour  of  Prophecy. — 2  Mace.  ii.  13. — (II.)  When  were 
*  Prophets  '  regarded  as  Scripture  ? — *  Law,'  at  first,  overshadowed 
all  other  writings. — Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Minor  Prophets. — Alex- 
ander's victories,  reaction  against  Legalism. — Ecclesiasticus,  evi- 
dence of. — Order  of  the  'famous  men.'— Mention  of  the  Twelve 
Prophets. — Important  names  omitted. — Dan.  ix.  2,  evidence  of. — 
Greek  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus. — Prophets  selected,  300-200 
B.  c. — Value  of  their  witness  in  the  Second  Cent.  b.  c. — (III.) 
Other  Books  known,  but  not  recognised  as  Scripture. — Ruth  and 
Lamentations,  not  in  *  Nebiim,' — The  *  Prophets '  and  Synagogue 
usage. — *  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  ' 


CHAPTER  VL 

The  Third  Canon,  or  The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and 
THE  Writings. 
Books  known  but  not  regarded  as  Scripture. — Appendix  to  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets. — Apparent  anomalies  in  *  tripartite  division  ' 
of  Scripture  explained.  —  Jewish  explanations.  —  An  unlikely 
theory. — Maccabean  Epoch. — Edict  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  its 
effect. — Important  tradition,  2  Mace.  ii.  14. — Psalter,  quoted  as 
Scripture,  i  Mace.  vii.  16. — i  Chron.  xvi.  36. — Books,  undisputed 
and  disputed. — Undisputed  :  Proverbs,  Job,  Ruth,  Lamentations, 
Ezra-Nehemiah,  Daniel. — Disputed  :  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Esther. — Books  of  Chronicles,  appended        .         .         .         .         .119 


CHAPTER  Vn. 

The  Third  Canon  (continued). 

External  Evidence  :  (i)  Greek  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus. — 
(2)  The  Septuagint  Version,  begun  circ.  250  b.  c. — Possibly  com- 
plete, 132  B.C. — (3)  I  Maccabees. — (4)  Philo. — De  Vita  Contem- 
plat.  §  3,  doubtful  evidence. — (5)  The  New  Testament. — The  Tri- 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

partite  Division. — Books  of  O.  T.  not  quoted. — Groups  recog- 
nised.— Completion  of  Canon  presupposed. — Apocryphal  Books 
not  treated  as  Scripture. — (6)  4  Esdras,  circ.  90  a.  d. — (7)  Flavins 
Josephus,  37-circ.  no  A.  D.,  Antiquitates  Judaicae. — Contra  Apio- 
nem,  cap.  viii. — Josephus,  spokesman  of  Jews. — Uses  LXX, — 
Belief  in  inspiration. — His  Canon  of  22  Books. — Standard  of 
Canonicity. — His  enumeration  explained        .....       143 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Third  Canon  {concluded). 
Canon  recognised  by  Josephus,  permanently  accepted. — De- 
struction of  Jerusalem. — Heightened  veneration  for  Scripture. — 
The  Greek  Version,  its  relations  to  Hebrew  Canon. — The  influ- 
ence of  Greek  language — Of  Christian  usage. — Rabbinical  discus- 
sions on  subject  of  Canonicity,  of  first  cent.  a.  d. — Synod  of 
Jamnia. — Jewish  official  conclusion  of  Canon  about  100  a.  d. — 
Canon  practically  closed  105  b.  c. — External  evidence. — Historical 
probability,  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  Rabbinical  Schools. — '  Dis- 
puted '  books,  grounds  of  probable  admission. — '  Kethubim '  group 
admitted  160-105  b.  c. — Significance  of  two  periods  :  160-105  B.C., 
90-110  A.  D. — The  Hebrew  Canon  and  the  New  Covenant    .         .       167 

CHAPTER  IX. 
After  the  Conclusion  of  the  Canon. 
No  change  in  Hebrew  Canon, — Apocrypha  in  Christian  Church. 
— Why  not  in  Jewish  ? — Canon  protected  by  (i)  antiquity,  (2) 
prestige  of  origin,  (3)  distinctive  teaching. — Ecclesiasticus,  i  Mac- 
cabees, written  in  Hebrew,  never  admitted  into  Canon. — '  To  defile 
the  hands.' — '  Disputed,'  or  'hidden'  books  {Genuzini). — '  Extra- 
neous,' or  '  outside,'  books  {Khitzonini)  .....       180 

CHAPTER  X. 
Later  Jewish  Testimony. 
Rabbinic    evidence    uncritical. — Two    titles  :    *  the    Four-and- 
Twenty '  and  *  The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Writings.' — Rab- 
binic objections  to  the  Canonicity  of  Ezekiel — Jonah — Proverbs — 
Ecclesiastes — Song  of  Songs — Esther. — Canonicity  presupposed.       189 


CONTENTS.  xvii 

CHAPTER  XI. 
The  Hebrew  Canon  in  the  Christian  Church. 

PAGE 

Esther,  excluded  from  public  use,  locally. — Melito,  his  list. — 
Omission  of  Esther,  (a)  accidental,  {b)  intentional. —  Place  of 
Esther  in  other  lists. — Causes  of  omission. — Placed  among  *  Genu- 
zim^  not  understood. — Prejudice  perpetuated  by  tradition. — Ori- 
gen,  omits  Minor  Prophets— adds  'Epistle.' — 'Apocryplia'  belong 
to  history  of  lxx 203 

CHAPTER  Xn. 

The  Arrangement  of  the  Books. 

The  Tripartite  Division. — Jewish  explanations  inadequate. — 
Modern  teaching,  deduced  from,  not  explanatory  of,  facts. — I.  In- 
fluence of-  LXX  on  arrangement  of  books — Melito — Origen — Cod. 
Vaticanus — Cod.  Alexandrinus — Cod.  Sinaiticus — Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem— Athanasius — Gregory  of  Nazianzus— Council  of  Laodicea, 
spurious  Canon — Epiphanius — Ruffinus. — II.  Hebrew  Canon — 
Variations  in  order — ia)  Ruth  and  Lam. — Jerome,  ProL  Gal. — 
Evidence  inaccurate — Patristic  idea,  twenty-two  Hebrew  letters, 
twenty-two  Hebrew  Books  of  Scripture — Twenty-four  Hebrew^ 
books — Ruth  and  Lam.  in  Talmud,  Targum,  Jerome's  Prefat.  in 
Dan. — (b)  Order  of  *  the  Prophets  ' — Writing  on  Rolls — Nebhm 
rishonim  and  Akharonim — The  Talmudic  Order,  Jer.,  Ezek.,  Is. — 
Explanations — Rabbinic,  Abr.  Geiger,  Fiirst,  Marx. — Minor  Pro- 
phets.— (c)  Kethubim,  Talmudic  order — Order  in  Jerome's  ProL 
Gal. — in  Hebrew  MSS. — Talmudic,  Spanish,  German. — Poetical 
books — Five  Megilloth. — Another  Talmudic  order. — Division  of 
books. — Sections  'closed*  and  'open.' — Synagogue  Lessons. — 
Babylonian  use — Palestinian — Chapters  and  Verses       .         .         .210 


EXCURSUS  A. 

The  Origin  of  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  according 
to  Tradition  : — 

1.  The  Legend  of  Ezra  and  the  Books  of  Scripture      .         .       239 

2.  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  ....       250 

b 


XVIU  CONTENTS. 

EXCURSUS   B. 

PAGE 

Baba  Bathra  14  b,  15  rt,  Baraitha,  in  English  Translation     .         .       273 

EXCURSUS   C. 
Lists  of  Hebrew  Scriptures         .......       281 

EXCURSUS   D. 

Text  of  important  quotations       .         .         .    ^     .         .         .         .       2S3 

EXCURSUS   E. 
Titles  of  Hebrew  Scriptures        .......       290 

Index  to  Scripture  References 295 

General  Index 300 


A  List  of  some  of  the  7nore  Important  Books 
consulted  in  the  present   Work, 


Bloch,  J.  S.,  Siudien  zur  Gesehichte  der  Sammlung  der  althehrdischen 

Literatur  (Breslau,  1876). 
Buhl,  Fr.^  Kanon  u.  Text  des  Alien  Testamentes  (Leipzig,  1891). 
BuxTORF,  JoH.,  Tiberias  sive  Commentarius  Massorethicus  Triplex  (Basle, 

1665). 
Cheyne,  T.  K.,  Job  and  Solomon  (London,   1887);    The  Origin  of  the 

Psalter  (London,  1891). 
Davidson,  Sam.,  The  Canon  of  the  Bible  (London,  1877). 
Derenbourg,  J.,  Essai  sur  tHistoire  et  la  Geographie  de  la  Palestine 

(Paris,  1867). 
De  Wette-Schrader,  Lehrbuch  der  histor.-krit.  Einleitung  (Berlin,  1869). 
DiLLMANN,  Aug.,  Ueber  die  Bildung  u.  Sammlung  heiliger  Schriften  des 

A.  T.  (Jahrb.  f  Deutsche  Theol.  1858,  pp.  419-491)  ;    Ueber  die  Com- 
position des  Hexateuch  {Kurzgefasstes  Exeg.  Handbuch  zmn  A.  T.,  2*® 

Auflage,  Leipzig,  1886). 
Driver,  S.  R.,  Critical  Study  of  the  Old  Testament  {Coniemp.  Review^ 

Feb.   1890) ;   An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament 

(Edinburgh,  1891). 
Etheridge,  J.  W,,  Introduction  to  Hebrew  Literature  (London,  1856), 
Furst,  Jul.,  Der  Kanon  des  Alten  Testamentes  (Leipzig,  1868). 
Geiger,  Abr.,  Urschrift  u.  Uebersetzungen  der  Bibel  (Breslau,  1857). 
GiNSBURG,  Ch.  D.,  77?^  Massoreth  Ha-Massoreth  of  Elias  Levita  (London, 

1867). 
Keil,  C.  F.,  Lehrbuch  der  histor.-krit.  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.  (Frankfurt 

a.  M.  1873). 
KiRKPATRicK,  A.  F.,  The  Divine  Library  (London,  1891). 
Leusden,  Joh.,  Philologus  Hebraeus  (Utrecht,  1672,  edit.  sec). 
Marx,  Gust.  Arm.,  Traditio  Rabbinorum  Vetertima  (Leipzig,  1884). 
RiEHM,  Ed.,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (Halle,  !*«>•  Teil,  1889 ;  2*«'-, 

1890). 


XX  LIST  OF   BOOKS.  S| 

ScHURER,  Emil.  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes,  2*e'"7heil  (Leipzig,  i886\ 
Smith,  W.  Robertson,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church  (Edin- 
burgh, 1881). 
Speaker's  Commentary,  Apocrypha  (2  vols.  London,  1888). 
Strack,  Herm.  L.,  Article,  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments  (Herzog-Plitt. 

R.  E.2  vol.  vii.  1880)  ;   Talmud  (Herzog-Plitt.  R.  E.^  vol.  xviii.  1888). 
Stuart,  Moses,  Critical  History  and  Defence  of  the  O.  T.  Canon  (London, 

1849). 
Taylor,  C,  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers  (Cambridge,  1877). 
Weber,  Ferd.,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmud  (Leipzig,  1886). 
Wellhausen-Bleek,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (Berlin,  1886). 
Westcott,  B.  F.,  Article,  '  Canon  '  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet.  (London,  1863)  ; 

The  Bible  in  the  Church  (London,   1863-1885) ;  On  the  Canon  of  the 

New  Testament  (London,  1855-1881). 
Wildeboer,  G.,  Het  Onstaan  van  den  Kanon  des  Ouden  Verlfonds  (Gro- 

ningen,  1889). 

(N.  B. — Z.  A.  T.  W.=Zei'tschrift  fiir  die  Alttestamentliche  Wissenschaft ; 
Z.  D.  M.  G.=^Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenldndischen  Gesellschaft.) 


Scriptural  Quotations  are  uniformly  taken  from  the  Revised  Version. 
Isaiah  i-xxxix  is  sometimes,  for  brevity's  sake,  referred  to  as  Isaiah  I, 
and  xl-lxvi  as  Isaiah  II. 


CHRONOLOGY. 


621.  Discovery  of 'the  Book  of  the 
Law.' 

586.  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Chaldeans. 

536.  Return  from  the  Exile. 

444.  Nehemiah,  Governor  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  Ezra  reads  '  the 
Law '  to  the  people. 

432.  Nehemiah  expels  grandson  of 
Eliashib. 

332,  Conquest  of  Persian  Empire 
by  Alexander  the  Great. 

219.  Simon  II,  High  Priest. 


180  (1).  Jesus,  the  son   of  Sirach, 

wrote  Ecclesiasticus. 
168.  Persecution  of  AntiochusEpi- 
phanes. 
Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus. 
Death  of  John  Hyrcanus. 


132. 
105. 

A.D. 
70. 


Destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 

the  Romans. 
90  (?).  Synod     of    Jamnia ;    and, 

possibly,   composition    of  2 

(4)  Esdras. 
ICO  circ.  Josephus,   Contra  Apio- 

nent. 


^ 


[tJirrvBiisiTri 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Recent  Biblical  discussion  has  familiarised  English  introduct. 
readers  with  many  of  the  chief  problems  raised  by  modern 
phases  of  Old  Testament  Criticism.  But  the  interest, 
which  is  naturally  felt  in  the  investigation  of  the  structure 
of  the  Sacred  Books,  has  tended  to  throw  into  the  back- 
ground that  other  group  of  problems,  which  concerns 
their  admission  into  the  Canon.  To  the  Christian 
student  the  latter,  though  a  less  attractive,  or,  at  least,  a 
less  promising  field  of  investigation,  must  always  be  one 
of  first-rate  importance.  For,  after  all,  whether  a  book 
has  had  a  simple  or  a  complex  history,  whether  or  no 
the  analysis  of  its  structure  reveals  the  existence  of 
successive  compilation,  adaptation  and  revision,  are  only 
secondary  questions,  of  great  literary  interest  indeed,  but 
yet  of  subordinate  importance,  if  they  do  not  affect  the 
relation  of  Scripture  to  the  Church.  They  are  literar}^ 
problems.  They  need  not  necessarily  invite  the  interest 
of  the  Christian  student.  Whether  they  do  so  or  not; 
will  depend  upon  his  habits  of  mind.  A  better  know- 
^^^dge  of  the  structure  of  a  book  will  not,  as  a  rule, 

■ 


2  THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

iNTRODucT.  affect  his  view  of  its  authority.  His  conviction,  that 
a  book  is  rightly  regarded  as  Holy  Scripture,  will  not 
be  shaken,  because  it  proves  to  consist  of  elements 
whose  very  existence  had  been  scarcely  imagined  before 
the  present  century. 

Other  probJems,  however,  arise  before  the  Biblical 
student.  He  never  ceases  to  wish  to  learn  more  ac- 
curately, nay,  he  is  compelled,  against  his  will,  to  reflect 
more  seriously  upon,  the  process,  by  which  the  books  of 
Holy  Scripture  have  obtained  recognition  as  a  sacred 
and  authoritative  Canon. 

The  process,  by  which  the  various  books  of  the  Old 
7 he  o.  T.  Testament  came  to  be  recognized  as  sacred  and  author- 
^ormedT^  itativc,  would,  if  we  could  discover  it,  supply  us  with  the 
complete  history  of  the  formation  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon.  By  that  process,  we  know,  books,  believed  to  be 
^  divine,  were  separated  from  all  other  books.  By  that  pro- 
cess, we  know,  writings,  containing  the  Word  of  God, 
became  recognised  as  the  standard  of  life  and  doctrine. 
These  are  only  the  results  which  lie  at  our  feet.  We  in- 
stinctively inquire  for  the  causes  whichl  ed  to  them.  How 
were  these  writings  separated  from  all  other  Hebrew 
literature  ?  When  did  the  separation  take  place  ?  What 
was  the  test  of  Canonicity,  which  determined,  in  one  case, 
admission  into,  in  another,  exclusion  from,  the  sacred 
collection  ?  Questions  such  as  these,  cannot  fail  to  suggest 
themselves  to  every  thoughtful  Christian  mind.  Indeed, 
the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  is  itself  so  varied  in 
character,  that  an  inquiry  into  the  formation  of  a  Canon, 
which  includes  writings  so  different  as  Genesis  and  the 
Song  of  Songs,  Esther  and  Isaiah,  Judges  and  the 
Psalter,  needs  no  justification.  It  is  demanded  by  the 
spirit   of  the   age.     It   is   even  demanded,  as  just  and 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

necessary,  by  the  requirements  of  reverent  and    devout  introduct. 
btudy. 

The  inquiry,  however,  is  no  simple  one.     The  subject  External 
Is  involved  in  great  obscurity.      At  the  outset,  we  are  wanting, 
confronted  by  the  fact,  that  no  historical  account  of  the 
formation  of  the  Canon  has  been  preserved.     Neither  in 
Scripture,  nor  in  Josephus,  is  any  narrative  given  of  the 
process  of  its  formation.     A  couple  of  legendary  allu-  \ 
sions,  to  be  found  in  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees  (ch. 
ii.  13-15)  and  in  the  so-called  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras  / 
(ch.  xiv.  19-48),  supply  all  the  light  which  direct  external 
evidence  throws  upon  the  subject^.    The  path  is  thus  left 
open  ;  and,  in  consequence,  the  investigation  is  beset  by 
all  the  usual  obstacles  that  can  be  thrown  in  the  way, 
untrustworthy   legend,  popular  assumption,  clever,  but 
baseless,  speculations. 

The  necessity  of  offering  some  account  of  the  origin  oi  Legend: 
their  Sacred  Scriptures  occasioned  the  rise  of  certain  christtan. 
legends  amongst  the  Jews,  which,  as  is  well  known, 
associated,  now  with  Ezra,  now  with  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,  the  task  of  collecting,  transcribing,  revising, 
and  promulgating  the  Hebrew  Canon.  What  may  have 
been  the  origin  of  these  legends,  and  what  their  relation 
to  particular  phases  of  Jewish  history,  we  do  not  stop  here 
to  inquire^.  They  rest  on  no  historical  support,  so  far 
as  they  relate  to  the  final  formation  of  the  Canon  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

In  unscientific  times,  plausible  legend  is  readily  ac- 
cepted, in  the  absence  of  direct  testimony,  for  trust- 
worthy history.      Having   once  been  adopted  and  cir- 

^  N.B. — Talmudic  legend  (Baba  bathia,  14  b)  does  not  touch  the  sub- 
ject oi  \h&  formation  of  the  Canon.     See  Excursus  B. 
"^  See  Excursus  A. 

B  % 


4  THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

iNTRODucT.  culated  in  the  Jewish  Church,  such  legends  were  only 
too  naturally  transferred  to  the  soil  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Accordingly,  we  find  the  belief  that  Ezra 
was  inspired  to  rewrite  and  reissue  the  Sacred  Books, 
which  had  been  burned  by  the  Chaldeans  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  commonly  accepted,  and 
repeated  by  successive  divines  of  the  Christian  Church 
until  the  era  of  the  Reformation  ^.  Thenceforward  the 
authority  of  a  learned  Jew,  Elias  Levita,  who  published 
his  Massoreth  Hammasoreth  in  1538,  caused  a  more 
credible  tale  to  be  generally  accepted,  that  the  work  of 
collecting  and  editing  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  performed  by  the  *  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.'^ 
Many  varieties  of  the  same  story  have  since  found  favour 
in  the  -Church — a  circumstance  which  is  certainly  not  due 
to  the  more  trustworthy  character  of  the  evidence  for  the 
narrative,  but,  probably,  merely  to  the  greater  inherent 
credibility  of  its  statements  ^. 

Recent  investigation,  which  has  given  to  these  legends 
their  proper  weight  at  particular  stages  of  the  historical 
inquiry,  has  also  brought  convincingly  to  light  their 
wholly  untrustworthy  character.  It  is  recognized  that, 
while  Ezra's  work  was  rightly  connected,  in  the  memory 
of  his  countrymen,  with  the  preservation  of  the  Scriptures, 
only  legend  has  transformed  that  connexion  into  the 
work  of  officially  promulgating  the  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Again,  the  very  existence  of  '  the  Great 
Synagogue,'  save  as  a  name  for  a  blank  space  in  the 
annals  of  the  Jewish  people,  has  failed  to  stand  the 
scrutiny  of  a  close  historical  inquiry.  The  further  we 
recede  into  the  past,  the  more  meagre  grows  the  evidence 

^  See  Excursus  A.  I.  ^  See  Excursus  A.  II. 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

for  that  tradition.  Indeed,  if  such  an  institution  ever  introduct. 
existed,  if  it  ever  exerted  an  influence  over  the  Jewish 
people  and  over  Jewish  literature,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  a 
surprising,  an  inexplicable  fact,  that  it  was  reserved  for 
mediaeval  writers  to  supply  the  names  of  its  members  and 
to  describe  the  details  of  their  functions. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether,  with  the  mass  of  modern 
English  readers,  ecclesiastical  legend  carries  much  weight. 
Those,  to  whom  the  work  of  Ezra  and  of  '  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue '  upon  the  Old  Testament  has  been  known  simply 
as  a  pleasing  tale,  are  not  likely  to  feel  distressed  at 
learning  its  worthlessness  as  history.  Few,  we  may  be 
sure,  have  ever  seriously  regarded  their  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  in  the  light  of  a  collection  whose  limits  and 
character  had  been  determined  by  Ezra  and  his  col- 
leagues. By  the  mass  of  readers,  if  any  thought  has  ever 
been  expended  upon  the  origin  and  formation  of  the  Old 
Testament  Canon,  ecclesiastical  tradition  has  probably 
been  generally  set  aside  in  favour  of  a  vague  popular 
assumption. 

Popular  assumption  is  apt  to  follow  the  line  of  l^diSt  Popular  as- 
resistance.  It  is  impatient  of  the  slow,  dull,  processes 
and  small  results  of  historical  research.  Popular 
assumption  accounts  a  general  belief  in  the  great 
fact  of  Inspiration  sufficient  for  all  practical  purposes. 
Armed  with  that  weapon,  a  man  can  afford,  it  is 
thought,  to  dispense  with  the  necessity  of  forming 
any  careful  opinion  upon  the  origin  of  the  Canon. 
Popular  assumption  has  sometimes  even  thought  it 
the  part  of  true  piety  to  stifle  inquiry  with  the  fallacious 
maxim,  that,  where  we  are  not  told  a  thing,  there  we  are 
not  intended  to  know  it.  Popular  assumption  identifies 
the  age  of  which  a  narrative  treats  with  the  age  of  its 


6  THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

tntroduct.  composition.     Popular  assumption  regards  the  most  emi- 
'  nent  personage  in  the  narrative  as  the  individual  most 

likely  to  have  been  its  author.  Popular  assumption 
pictures  to  itself  the  whole  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  an  unbroken  succession  of  sacred  writing;  as  a 
continuous  stream,  fed,  in  each  generation,  by  tributaries 
from  the  most  holy  men,  from  Moses  and  Joshua  down 
to  Ezra  and  Malachi  ;  as  a  mighty  deposit,  to  which 
each  age,  by  the  hand  of  its  holiest  representative,  has 
contributed  an  additional  layer,  until,  in  the  days  of 
Ezra  and  Malachi,  the  whole  orderly  work  was  brought 
to  a  conclusion. 

For  the  purpose  of  a  true  conception  of  the  history  of 
the  Canon,  such  unsupported  assumptions,  it  is  needless 
to  say,  are  alike  inadequate  and  misleading.  We  need 
not  waste  time  with  their  refutation.  They  are  con- 
tradicted by  what  we  know  both  of  the  history  of  the 
people  and  of  the  analysis  of  the  individual  books. 

speculation.  Hardly  more  satisfactory,  however,  are  the  conjectures 
which,  in  the  absence  of  more  direct  evidence,  have 
been  put  forward  by  men  of  learning  and  ability  with 
the  view  of  explaining  the  origin  of  the  Canon.  Thus,  it 
has  been  suggested  that  the  Canon  contains  merely  the 
relics  of  Hebrew  literature,  which,  having  survived,  in 
the  language  of  ancient  Israel,  the  ravages  of  time, 
were  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  sacred  and  authoritative  ; 
and  that,  hence,  the  sacred  authority  with  which  they  were 
invested  was  only  the  recognition  of  their  literary  anti- 
quity and  rarity  ^.    Recent  criticism,  however,  if  only  by 

^  Hitzig,  Ps.,  histor.  krit.  Conim.  ii.  p.  ii8,  *  alle  aus  Christi  Vorzeit  stam- 
menden  hebr.  Biicher  sind  kanonisch  ;  alle  kanonischen  hebraisch,  wahrend 
zu  den  Apocryphen  alle  griechisch  geschriebenen  gerechnet  werden.'  Ber- 
tholdt,  Einleit.  i.  p.  13. 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

Ifestablisbing  the  comparatively  late  date  of  the  composi-  introduct. 
tion  of  such  books  as  Chronicles,  Ecclesiastes  and  Daniel, 
will  have  sufficiently  disposed  of  the  assumption  that 
the  Canon  was  a  mere  residue  of  archaic  Hebrew  writ- 
ings ;  even  if  evidence  were  not  abundantly  at  hand 
to  show,  that  Hebrew  writing  was  very  far  from  being 
extinct  in  the  days  when  the  Canon  was  being  brought 
to  a  conclusion.  To  suppose  that  books  were  con- 
stituted a  sacred  Canon  of  Scripture,  because  of  the 
accident  of  their  having  survived  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, is  completely  to  invert  the  actual  order  of  events. 
Nothing  can  be  more  clear  than  this,  that  the  Books  of 
the  Old  Testament  have  come  down  to  us  in  the 
Hebrew,  because,  having  been,  at  the  first,  written  in 
that  language,  they  were  also,  in  that  language,  received 
and  reverenced  as  the  Canon  of  Scripture  in  the  Jewish 
Church. 

Similarly,  we  need  here  only  mention,  for  the  sake  of 
at  once  dismissing  from  view,  the  supposition  that  the 
Old  Testament  is  merely  an  anthology  of  Hebrew  liter- 
ature, a  choice  collection,  as  it  were,  of  the  gems  of 
Jewish  classics,  such  as  might  have  been  made,  in  later 
days,  from  Greek  or  Roman  literature.  Such  a  con- 
ception ignores  the  most  distinctive  and  fundamental 
feature  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  This,  we  feel, 
is,  beyond  all  dispute,  its  religious  character.  All  the 
evidence,  external  and  internal,  combines  to  show,  that 
the  collection  was  intended  to  serve  a  religious  purpose; 
and,  in  the  perception  of  that  purpose  alone,  can  we  hope 
to  recognize  the  principles  that  governed  its  formation. 

We  assume,  therefore,  that  the  collection  of  the 
sacred  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  on  the  ground,  either  of  its  containing  the 


8      THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

iNTRODucT.  relics  of  a  past  literature,  or  of  its  being  intended  to 
serve,  for  literary  purposes,  as  the  standard  of  Hebrew 
composition.  We  assume,  that  the  writings  included  in 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  were  brought  together 
for  a  special  purpose^  and  that  that  purpose  was  a  re- 
ligious one. 

Of  course,  if  we  were  justified,  at  this  point,  in 
making  use  of  the  analogy  to  be  drawn  from  the 
Canon  of  Cauon  of  the  New  Testament,  we  might  forthwith  as- 
logy'.'  sume,  that  the  Scriptures  were  gradually  selected  from 
among  the  literature  of  the  Jews,  on  the  ground  of 
their  being  believed  to  make  known  the  Word  of  God 
in  a  special  degree  and  manner ;  and  that,  as  the  result  of 
their  selection  and  by  virtue  of  this  belief  in  their  divine 
origin,  they  acquired  undisputed  authority  over  the  people. 
Such  an  analogy,  it  is  true,  would  supply  us  at  once 
with  a  key  to  our  inquiry.  We  should  look  for  the 
essence  of  Canonicity  in  the  gradual  selection  from  a 
people's  religious  literature,  and  for  the  principle  of  that 
selection  in  the  popular  recognition  of  the  spiritual  power 
and  sanctity  possessed  by  certain  writings. 

We  must,  however,  be  on  our  guard  against  the 
anachronism  of  freely  introducing  into  our  inquiry 
ideas  which  have  been  borrowed  from  the  experience 
of  the  Christian  Church.  The  formation  of  the  He- 
brew Canon  belongs  to  an  earlier  time  than  that  of 
the  New  Testament  Canon.  It  belongs  to  a  very 
different  community.  The  circumstances  attending  its 
growth  were  as  widely  different  as  possible  from  those 
which  accompanied  the  formation  of  the  New  Testament 
Canon.  Accordingly,  while  it  may  be  interesting  to 
remind  ourselves,  from  time  to  time,  that  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament  was  formed  by  gradual  accretion, 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

and  that  its  limits  were  determined  rather  by  popular  introduct. 
usage  than  by  personal  or  official  authority,  we  must  not 
suffer  the  comparison  to  bias  the  freedom  of  our  in- 
vestigation. Analogy  may  illustrate,  it  must  not  antici- 
pate our  argument.  Even  the  use  of  such  terms  as  Canon 
and  Canonicity  are,  so  far,  apt  to  be  misleading.  No 
other  terms  can  well  be  employed  in  their  place.  But 
we  must  remember  that  they  and,  in  some  measure,  the 
ideas  connected  with  them,  have  been  derived  from  an 
exclusively  Christian  usage,  which  dates,  at  the  earliest, 
from  the  fourth  century  A.D.^ 

What  now  remains  with  which  we  can  prosecute  our  internal 
investigation?  We  have  seen  that  Jewish  and  Christian 
legends  are  rejected  as  untrustworthy,  so  far  as  they 
claim  to  give  an  account  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon, 
and  that  they  can  only  be  employed,  and  then  but  with 
caution,  to  illustrate  particular  points.  We  are  confident, 
that  mere  assumptions,  whether  popular  and  ignorant  or 
ingenious  and  speculative,  cannot,  in  the  present  day, 
be  accepted  as  supplying  any  satisfactory  substitute 
for  the  results,  however  small  they  may  seem  to  be,  of 
historical  criticism.  We  are  left  face  to  face  with  the 
books  themselves.  When  the  external  evidence  fails  us, 
it  is  to  the  internal  evidence  that  we  must  turn.  Scrip- 
ture must  tell  its  own  tale.  No  record  of  the  circum- 
stances which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Sacred  deposit 
having  elsewhere  been  preserved  to  us,  we  must  pierce 
down  and  investigate  the  signs  of  the  strata  themselves. 
We  must  see,  whether  their  history  has  not  there  been 
told,  and,  if  so,  whether  we  cannot  decipher  it.  The 
testimony  of  other  Jewish  writings  will,  of  course,  be 

^  On  the  origin  and  use  of  the  word  '  Canon,'  see  Westcott,  On  the  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament.   Appendix  A. 


10     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

iNTRODucT.  employed,  where  possible,  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating 
and  confirming  the  results  that  may  be  obtained.  But, 
strictly  speaking,  the  observation  of  details  in  Scripture 
itself  will  supply  the  needed  clue  to  the  history  of  the 
Sacred  Canon  more  fully  than  any  hints  to  be  derived 
from  other  sources. 
Tripartite  At  the  outsct,  attention  has  usually,  and  perhaps 
BookT^  rightly,  been  called  by  scholars  who  have  written  upon 
the  subject,  to  the  tripartite  division  of  the  books  in  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  expressed  in  the  threefold  name  '  Law, 
Prophets,  and  Writings'  (Torah,  Nebiim,  Ket/mbim),  by 
which  the  Jews  have  designated  their  Scriptures.  This 
tripartite  division,  of  which  the  first  direct  evidence  dates 
from  the  second  century  B.c.\  is  obviously  no  arbitrary 
arrangement.  As  we  hope  to  show,  in  the  course  of 
the  present  work,  it  can  only  be  rightly  understood, 
when  viewed  in  the  light  of  that  history  of  the  Canon 
which  we  endeavour  to  sketch  here.  Its  full  discussion, 
therefore,  as  evidence  to  the  formation  of  the  Canon,  must 
be  deferred  to  the  stage  when  the  first  mention  of  the  three- 
fold division  comes  under  our  notice.  Regarded,  however, 
.  merely  as  the  embodiment  of  a  very  ancient  Jewish 
tradition,  it  deserves  mention  at  this  point,  on  account 
of  its  being  opposed  to  the  legends  which  have  been 
alluded  to  above.  For,  whereas  the  Jewish  legends, 
assigning  to  Ezra  or  to  'the  Great  Synagogue'  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  reflect  the  belief  that 
it  was  the  work  of  one  man  or  of  a  single  generation, 
the  triple  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  embodies  a 
far  more  ancient  tradition,  that  of  a  gradual  development 
in  the  formation  of  the  Canon  through  three  successive 

*  See  Greek  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus  (written  about  132  B.C.),  quoted 
in  extenso,  Appendix  D. 


INTRODUCTION.  II 

stages.  If  this  be  the  correct  explanation  of  the  Tripartite  introduct. 
Division  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  and  we  believe  it  is  so, 
;  we  shall  be  able  to  appeal  to  it  later  on  as  evidence, 
I  which  favours  the  representation  of  history  to  be  made 
'[  in  the  following  chapters. 

For  the  sake  of  readers  who   may  not  before  have 

'  given  close  attention  to  this  subject,  we  here  subjoin  the 

contents  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture  in  the  order 

and    arrangement    in   which   they    appear    in    Hebrew 

Bibles  :— 

I.  '  The  Law,'  or  Torah,  which  is  equivalent  to  our 
Pentateuch. 

n.  *  The  Prophets,'  or  Nebiim,  which  are  divided  into 
two  groups — 

(a)  The  Former  Prophets,  or  Nebiim  rishonim  ;  four 
narrative    books,   Joshua,    Judges,    Samuel, 
Kings. 
[d)  The  Latter  Prophets,  or  Nebiim  akharonim ;  four 
prophetical    books,    three    '  great    prophets,' 
Isaiah,   Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and    'the    Minor 
Prophets,'  the  twelve  being  united  in  a  single 
book. 
III.  '  The  Writings,'  or  Kethubim,  which  are  divided 
into  three  groups — 

(a)  The  Poetical  Books  ;  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job. 
(d)  The  Five  Rolls  (Megilloth) ;   Song   of  Songs, 

Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther. 
(c)  The  remaining  books ;  Daniel,  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah,  Chronicles. 
Upon  some  of  the  details  of  this  arrangement  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  speak  at  the  close  of  the  present  work  ^. 

^  See  Chap.  XII,  and  Excursus  C. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON. 

Chap.  I.  EVERYWHERE  throughout  the  history  of  the  literature, 
The  human  as  Well  as  in  the  actual  pages,  of  God's  Holy  Word  we 
oflheDivttte  rccognize  the  invisible  presence  and  the  constant  opera- 
^Ink/nd  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^  Holy  Spirit.  Save,  however,  where  express 
mention  is  made  of  some  external  miraculous  agency, 
it  is  neither  the  part  of  true  faith  nor  of  sound  reason 
to  presuppose  in  the  case  of  Holy  Scripture  the  occur- 
rence of  any  interference  with  the  laws  that  regulate 
the  composition  and  operate  in  the  transmission  of 
human  literature.  In  this  respect,  we  may  say,  it  is  the 
same  with  the  Books  of  Scripture  as  with  the  Prophets 
and  Apostles,  who  were  inspired  revealers  of  the 
Divine  Will.  We  acknowledge  in  both  the  over-ruling 
guidance  of  the  Spirit.  But  the  sacred  Canon  was 
subject  to  the  external  conditions  of  the  composition 
and  preservation  of  human  literature,  as  were  the 
messengers  to  the  laws  of  human  existence.  The 
men,  thus  highly  privileged  to  be  sent  on  their 
sacred  mission,  had  been  moulded  and  influenced  by 
education  and  surroundings,  by  the  very  limitations  of 
their  place  and  time ;  nor  should  we  think  of  attribu- 
ting to  them  the  possession  of  any  supernatural  powers 
of  which  no  mention  has  been  recorded  in  Scripture. 
Similarly,  in  the  case  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  we  are  not 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR  A  CANON.  1 3 

justified  in  assuming  that  the  external  circumstances  of  chap.  i. 
their  origin,  composition,  and  transmission  were  subject 
to  any  supernatural  privilege  or  exemption.  In  their 
colouring  and  tone,  they  will  reflect  the  literary  charac- 
teristics which  distinguished  the  day  of  their  composition. 
In  their  structure  and  formation,  they  will  reproduce  the 
common  standard  of  artistic  skill,  they  will  be  the  pro- 
duct of  the  usual  methods  pursued  by  authors  in  that  age 
and  country.  The  Divine  Spirit  penetrates  their  message 
with  life ;  it  quickens  their  teaching  with  power  ;  but  it 
does  not  supersede,  nor  become  a  substitute  for,  the  exer- 
cise of  the  powers  of  the  human  intellect,  the  reason,  the 
imagination,  the  discernment,  the  industry,  which  have, 
we  believe  contributed  with  unimpaired  freedom  to  the 
formation  of  the  Sacred  Books. 

So  much  it  was  needful  to  say  by  way  of  preface. 
For,  wherever,  as  in  the  case  of  Holy  Scripture,  we  are 
possessed  with  a  strong  belief  in  the  active  operation 
of  Divine  Inspiration,  there  we  are  subject  to  a  propor- 
tionately strong  temptation  to  anticipate  every  difficulty 
by  the  supposition,  that  a  special  miracle  may  have 
been  permitted,  even  though  it  be  in  the  domain  of 
strictly  human  effort.  '  Voluntary  humility '  is  linked  so 
closely  to  the  indolent  desire  for  interposition  within  the 
laws  of  our  nature,  that  rather  than  acknowledge  in  Scrip- 
ture the  presence  of  the  limitations  of  the  human  intel- 
lect, or  patiently  unravel  the  gradual  unfolding  of  the 
Divine  Will  by  the  instrumentality  of  human  weakness, 
it  prefers  to  assume,  that  human  powers  were  made 
divine,  and  raised  above  the  liability  to  error  and  imper- 
fection. 

Let  us,  therefore,  in  all  reverence  endeavour  to  bear  in 
mind  throughout  this  discussion  that,  in  the  formation 


14  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  1. 1  and  transmission  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  as  in  that 
of  the  New,  we  must  expect  to  find  the  continual  opera- 
tion of  the  same  natural  laws,  through  which  the  Divine 
purpose  is  unceasingly  being  fulfilled  on  earth.  Nor,  on 
the  other  hand,  let  it  ever  be  absent  from  our  minds,  that 
those  efforts  of  the  human  intelligence,  the  results  of  which 
we  here  endeavour  to  trace,  were  ever  being  overruled, 
'  according  to  the  commandment  of  the  eternal  God,'  to 
furnish  and  to  perfect  those  Scriptures  that  revealed  His 
Will,  and  thus  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  final  Revelation 
vouchsafed  in  the  coming  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  in  the 
flesh. 
Aprepara-  Wc  cousidcr  first,  thc  preparatory  steps  which  led 
CanoZt^be  to  the  formation  of  a  Hebrew  Canon.  That  there 
^w^  were  such  preparatory  steps^  and  that  the  Canon  did  not 
start  into  existence  fully  formed,  might,  indeed,  appear 
self-evident.  The  very  idea  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture 
implies  some  preliminary  stage.  We  can  hardly  think 
of  it,  save  as  of  a  collection  of  writings  regarded  as  sacred 
and  authoritative  by  a  community  professing,  outwardly 
at  least,  to  conform  to  its  teaching.  We  therefore  pre- 
suppose, in  the  idea  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture,  the  existence 
of  a  community  prepared  to  accept  its  authority.  Further, 
if  no  Divine  Revelation  is  recorded  as  specifying  the 
writings  of  which  it  should  consist,  we  must  also  assume 
that  the  writings,  to  which  such  honour  was  paid,  were 
selected  by  that  community  from  out  of  its  general 
literature.  We  have,  accordingly,  one  conception  of  the 
formation  of  a  Canon  in  the  selection,  or  adoption,  by  a 
religious  community,  of  a  certain  body  of  writings 
from  its  existing  literature.  Now  a  community  would 
hardly  accept  the  sanctity,  or  acknowledge  the  author- 
ity, of  writings,  which  it  did  not  regard  as  containing. 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON.  15 

lin  some  way,  the  expression  of  the  Divine  Will.  Con- 
iversely,  if  a  community  did  not  recognize  the  Will  of 
tGod,  it  would  not  acknowledge  that  those  writings,  which 
|claimed  to  reveal  His  Will,  possessed  either  sacredness  or 
authority.  In  other  words,  the  formation  of  a  Canon  of 
Kcripture  presupposes  the  existence  of  a  community  of 
Ibelievers. 

Accordingly,  when  we  reflect  on  it,  we  see  how  this  very 
conception  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture  may  point  us  back  to 
a  yet  earlier  time,  when  the  writings  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed had  their  place  among  the  ordinary  literature  of 
a  believing  people.  The  literature  must  first  arise,  before 
the  process  of  selection  begins  that  leads  to  the  formation 
of  a  Sacred  Collection.  Again,  so  far  as  the  community 
is  concerned,  we  see  that  a  community  which  selects  a 
Canon  of  Scripture  will  not  only  be  a  believer  in  the 
God  Who  is  recognized  in  that  literature,  but  must  also 
have  reached  that  particular  stage  in  its  religious  history, 
when  the  possibility  of  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will 
through  the  agency  of  human  literature  has  dawned 
upon  the  consciousness  of  the  nation.  This  last  point  is 
of  importance.  For  there  is  nothing  at  all  improb- 
able in  a  religious  community  existing  for  a  long 
period  without  the  adoption  of  any  particular  writings  as 
the  embodiment  of  belief,  or  as  the  inspired  and  author- 
itative standard  of  worship  and  conduct :  least  of  all 
would  this  be  improbable,  if  there  were  other,  and, 
seemingly,  no  less  authoritative,  means  of  declaring  the 
commands  of  God  and  of  maintaining  His  worship  un- 
impaired. Circumstances,  however,  might  arise  which 
would  alter  the  case,  and  make  it  advisable,  either  to 
embody  in  writing  the  sacred  teachings  of  the  past,  or 
to  recognize  the  authority  and  sanctity  of  certain  writings 


l6  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

already  existing,  which  contained  this  teaching  in  any 
specially  suitable  form.  For  instance,  the  peril  of 
national  disintegration  and  the  break  up  of  national  wor- 
ship might  reveal,  of  a  sudden,  that  in  such  writings  the 
people  had  a  divinely  ordained  means  of  preserving  the 
sacred  heritage  of  the  past  and  a  standard  providentially 
afforded  them  for  the  maintenance  of  true  religion  in 
the  future. 


A  Hebrew        But,  to    tum   from   so   purely  a   speculative   line   of 

Literature       .  .  r      -x      ^ 

before  a  thought,  wc  find  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Hebrew 
qltwn.  Scriptures  themselves  carry  with  them  their  own  testi- 
mony to  a  previous  stage  of  literature.  For,  setting 
aside  for  the  moment  their  frequent  allusions  to  and 
quotations  from  earlier  writings,  the  composite  character 
of  the  structure,  which,  in  the  case  of  many  books,  has 
been  placed  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  careful  analysis 
applied  by  modern  criticism,  conveys  clear  evidence  of 
such  a  previous  stage.  It  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to 
the  undoubted  instances  of  composite  structure  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  Historical  Books, 
Isaiah,  the  Psalter,  and  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  The  fact 
that  their  present  form  has  been  reached  by  compilation 
from  earlier  writings  would,  in  itself,  be  sufBcient  to 
demonstrate  the  truth  of  the  principle,  of  which  we  need 
so  often  to  be  reminded,  that  the  beginnings  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  begin- 
nijtgs  of  Hebrew  literature. 

This  principle,  however,  by  itself,  important  as  it  is,  is 
not  enough.  For  when  we  have  fully  recognized  that 
periods  of  literary  activity  are  presupposed  by  the  com- 
position of  our  Books,  as  we  know  them  in  their  present 
literary  form,  it  is  scarcely  less  necessary  to  recognize 


THE  PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON.  1 7 

'^. 
the  distinction  that  is  to  be  drawn  between  the  chap.  i. 
process  of  literary  construction  and  the  process  of  ad- 
mission into  the  Canon ;  the  one,  by  which  the  Books 
reached  their  present  literary  form  by  composition  and 
compilation  ;  the  other,  by  which  they  were  separated 
from  all  other  writings  as  the  sacred  and  authoritative 
expression  of  the  Word  of  God.  The  realization  of  this 
distinction  opens  up  a  very  interesting,  but  a  very 
intricate,  field  of  investigation.  Were  any  books,  that 
are  now  included  in  the  Old  Testament,  originally  ex- 
pressly composed  for  the  purpose  of  forming,  or  of  help- 
ing to  complete,  the  Hebrew  Canon?  Or,  was  there,  in 
every  case,  an  interval  of  time,  more  or  less  considerable, 
which  elapsed  between  composition  and  final  acceptance 
in  the  Canon  ? 

We  must  not  however  anticipate.     Let  it  be  enough 
here  to  insist,  that  great  misapprehensions  will  be  re- 
moved, if  we  are  careful  to  distinguish  between  the  three  Three 
stages,  under  which  we  recognise  the  guidance  of  the  \^"%rma. 
Holy  Spirit  in  preparing  for  us  the  Revelation  of  the  ^^'^\j^^^''^' 
Word    contained    in   the    Old   Testament.      These   are  selection. 
firstly,  the  '  elemental '  stage,  or,  that  of  the  formation 
of  the  literary  antecedents  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament :  secondly,  the  *  medial,'  or  that  of  their  redaction 
to  their  present  literary  form  :  thirdly,  the  '  final,'  or  that 
of  their  selection  for  the  position  of  honour  and  sanctity 
in   the   national   Canon    of  Holy  Scripture.     The   dis- 
tinction between  these  three  phases  is  essential. 


We  are   not   here   concerned  with   the   investigation 
into  the  rise  of  the  earliest  Hebrew  literature,  but  only 
with  the  processes  which  led  directly  to  the  formation 
C 


1 8     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  I.  and  growth  of  the  Canon.  We  need  not  therefore 
waste  time  over  a  preliminary  discussion  of  any  side 
issues.  We  need  not  examine,  as  has  so  often  been 
done  in  other  works  upon  this  subject,  all  the  earliest 
instances  in  which  the  practice  of  writing  is  recorded  in 
Holy  Scripture  (e.  g.  Ex.  xvii.  14,  xxiv.  4,  7,  xxxiv.  27, 
Num.  xxxiii.  2,  Deut.  xxxi.  9,22,  Josh.  xxiv.  26,  i  Sam. 
x.  25,  2  Sam.  XX.  24,  25  ^).  We  rather  proceed  at  once 
to  examine  the  assured  instances  of  collections  of 
writings  made  before  the  reign  of  Josiah  ^'  for  purposes  of 
national  and  religious  instruction.  The  earliest  collec- 
tions of  this  kind  may  be  classed  under  (i)  Songs,  (2) 
Laws,  (3)  Histories,  (4)  Prophecies. 
so>/.^'s:  (i)  Songs.     The  literature  of  Israel  forms  no  excep- 

w^/w/ c^/- tion  to  the  general  rule  that  ballads,  recounting  and 
hctiovs;  glorifying  the  brave  deeds  of  old,  are  to  be  reckoned  as 
the  earliest  fruit  of  a  nation's  literary  genius.  Under 
this  head  we  -should  class  such  poetical  pieces  as  '  The 
Song  of  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel,'  sung  after  the 
crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  xv.  i),  the  songs  commem- 
orative of  the  occupation  of  the  Amorite  territory  on  the 
east  bank  of  the  Jordan,  and  of  the  overthrow  of  Heshbon 
(Num.  xxi.  14-18  and  27-30),  the  triumph  song  of 
Deborah  (Judg.  v.),  and  the  dirge  of  David  over  Saul 
and  Jonathan  (2  Sam.  i.  19-27).  In  some  of  these  songs 
we  may  sometimes  discern  the  outline  of  a  narrative 
differing  somewhat  from  the  prose  narrative  of  the 
historian  who  incorporates    them.      Thus,  for  instance, 

^  To  this  list  some  would  add  Jud.  viii.  14  (R.  V.  marg.^.  On  early 
Israelite  writing,  see  an  article  by  Neubauer  on  '  The  Introduction  of  the 
Square  Characters  in  Biblical  MSS.'  {Studia  Biblica,  vol.  iii.  1891). 

^  The  reign  of  Josiah  is  here  referred  to,  because,  before  that  era,  there  is 
no  certainty  that  any  writing  ever  ranked  as  Canoni^;al  Scripture  in  Israel. 
Cf.  Art.  '  Canon,'  Bible  Diet. 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR  A   CANON.  1 9 

fit  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  story  of  Deborah,  as    chap.  i. 
Irecorded  in  the  song  (Judg.  v),  differs  in  certain  particu- 
pars  from  the  story  as  narrated  by  the  historian  of  Judg. 
pv.   (see    the    article    by    Professor    Davidson    in    The 
t^xposztory  Jan.   1887).      In    those    songs    from    which 
Extracts  are  made  in  Num.  xxi,  events  are  related  of 
|which  the   Pentateuch   elsewhere   tells  us   nothing,  al- 
though it  is   clear  that  the  recollection   of  them   pro- 
duced a  deep  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  children 
|of  Israel. 

National  collections  were  undoubtedly  made  of  such 
patriotic  songs  at  an  early  time.  The  names  of  two 
such  collections  have  been  preserved,  unless,  indeed,  as 
has  been  suggested,  they  are  only  two  titles  of  the  same 
collection.  These  are  '  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  the 
Lord '  (Num.  xxi.  14),  and  '  The  Book  of  Jashar,  or 
The  Upright'  (Josh.  x.  13,  2  Sam.  i.  18).  The  titles 
convey  to  us  the  purpose  with  which  «uch  collections  of 
national  poetry  were  formed.  Songs  contained  in  the 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord  will  have  described  how 
the  Lord  fought  for  Israel,  and  how  truly  Israel  belonged 
to  a  God  who  had  done  such  great  things  for  them.  The 
songs  contained  in  the  Book  of  Jashar  will  have  contained 
a  series  of  pictures  of  great  and  upright  men,  judges, 
warriors  and  princes,  measured  by  the  best  judgment  of 
their  time,  but  above  all  by  the  standard  of  the  fear  of 
Jehovah. 

Very  possibly,  too,  songs  that  were  of  undoubted 
antiquity,  but  ofdoubtful  authorship,  came  to  be  grouped 
under  certain  honoured  names.  Thus,  for  instance,  it  is 
possible  that  some  of  the  oldest  songs  were  ascribed  to 
Moses,  just  as  we  know  that  those  of  a  later  time  were 
commonly  ascribed  to  David.  The  song  in  Deut.  xxxii, 
C  2 


20  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  I.  the  Contents  of  which  clearly  show,  that  its  composition 
dates  from  a  period,  when  Canaan  was  already  in  the 
possession  of  the  Israelites,  and  when  the  writer  could 
look  back  upon  a  past  generation  in  which  Moses  lived  \ 
was  popularly  attributed  to  the  authorship  of  Moses,  or, 
at  least,  had  been  so  attributed  in  the  national  collection 
of  songs  from  which  it  was  transferred  to  its  present 
place.  So,  too,  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii.), 
which,  if  "we  may  judge  from  verses  4,  7,  27,  28  2,  belongs 
to  a  later  period  than  that  of  the  Lawgiver,  has  been 
taken  from  a  similar  collection  ;  and  the  title,  '  A  Prayer 
of  Moses,'  to  Ps.  xc,  was  possibly  introduced  into  the 
Psalter  from  a  national  collection  of  early  songs  in  which 
it  had  traditionally  been  ascribed  to  Moses. 

Although  the  art  of  writing  may  have  been  known  and 
practised  by  Israelites  in  the  days  of  Moses  ^,  the  number 
of  those  who  could  read  was  at  that  time,  and  for 
transmitted  ccuturics  aftcrwards,  very  small.  The  songs  mentioned 
^^'^  ^'  above,  if  they  were  at  first  committed  to  writing,  which 
is  in  itself  an  improbable  supposition,  must  have  owed 
their  preservation  chiefly  to  oral  tradition.  Composed 
originally  to  be  sung  at  sacred  festivals,  around  camp 
fires,  and  at  public  gatherings,  they  were  intended  both 
to  instruct  the  people  generally  upon  the  facts  of  their 
previous  history,  and,  especially,  to  quicken  their  faith 
and  to  confirm  them  in  the  service  of  Jehovah.  The  at- 
tainment of  this  purpose  could  only  be  secured  by  the 
freest  oral  circulation,  that  is  to  say,  by  trusting  to  the 
memories  of  the  common  people.     We  shall  therefore  do 

*  Cf.  vv.  7-12. 

^  See  Revised  Version. 

^  Certainly  the  cuneiform  character  may  have  been  used  by  them.  Cf. 
Sayce,  Transactions  Vict.  Inst.  1889.  No  Phoenician  writing  earlier  than 
the  loth  cent.  B.C.  has  yet  been  found. 


THE  PREPARATION  FOR  A  CANON.       21 

well  to  observe  that  the  Song  of  Heshbon  is  not  quoted  chap.  i. 
from  a  book,  but  is  referred  to  as  preserved  in  the  current 
utterance  of  those  'that  speak  in  proverbs'  (Num. 
xxi.  27),  a  phrase  which  suggests  a  comparison  with  the 
recitations  of  Ionian  bards  and  mediaeval  minstrels. 
Again,  we  gather  from  2  Sam.  i.  18,  that  David's  Dirge 
over  Jonathan  and  Saul  was  taught  to  the  people  orally, 
and  repeated  from  one  to  another.  The  reason  is  clear. 
The  oral  preceded  the  written  tradition  of  national  song. 
The  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  himself  quotes  from 
the  written  Book  of  Jashar.  In  his  time,  at  any  rate,  the 
song  had  been  incorporated  in  a  national  collection  which 
commemorated  the  glories  of  Israelite  heroes.  Now  we 
know,  that,  while  the  Book  of  Jashar  commemorated  the 
victory  of  Joshua  at  Bethhoron  (Josh.  x.  13),  it  also, 
according  to  the  very  probable  tradition  preserved  in  the 
Septuagint  translation  of  i  Kings  viii.  ^^,  contained  an 
ode  commemorative  of  the  foundation  of  Solomon's 
temple^.  The  process  of  forming  such  a  national  col- 
lection of  songs,  covering  the  history  of  many  centuries, 
may  of  course  have  been  a  gradual  one.  But,  with  the 
evidence  at  our  disposal,  we  can  hardly  suppose  that 
'  Jashar '  reached  the  literary  stage,  at  which  it  could  be 
quoted  as  a  well-known  book  by  the  writer  of  2  Sam.  i.  18, 
until,  at  the  earliest,  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury B.C. 

One  word  remains  to  be  said  upon  the  religious  inten-  />^/y 
tion  which  led  to  the  formation  of  such  national  collec-  pVrposf. 
tions  of  songs.     It  may  be  illustrated  from  the  language 
of  the  Deuteronomist.      The   song  which  is  there  put 
into  the  mouth  of  the  great  Lawgiver  is  regarded  as  an 
instrument  of  instruction  in  the  true  faith  of  Jehovah  : 

^  ovK  idov  avTT]  yiypaiTTai  4u  ^i^Xicf)  rffs  y'S^s  ; 


22  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

'  Now,  therefore,  write  ye  this  song  for  you,  and  teach 
thou  it  the  children  of  Israel ;  put  it* in  their  mouths  that 
this  song  may  be  a  witness  for  me  against  the  children 
of  Israel'  (ch.  xxxi.  19).  The  teaching  of  the  people 
by  means  of  this  song  (ver.  22)  is  kept  quite  distinct 
in  the  narrative  from  the  priests'  duty  of  guarding 
and  transmitting  the  law  which  Moses  had  received 
(ver.  9). 

National  songs  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  having 
been,  in  early  times,  a  recognised  means  of  giving  instruc- 
tion to  the  people.  The  formation  of  collections  of  such 
songs  marks  a  step,  though  it  be  but  a  slight  one,  in  the 
direction  of  the  selection  of  literature  which  should  more 
fully  and  authoritatively  reflect  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord. 

We  have  purposely  refrained  from  mentioning  the 
collections  of  Psalms  made  in  the  name  of  David  ^  That 
he  was  a  Psalm-writer,  appears  from  2  Sam.  i.  17-27,  iii. 
^^,  34,  xxii,  xxiii.  1-7.  But  it  does  not  appear  whether 
collections  of  Davidic  Psalms  existed  before  the  Exile. 
By  Amos  his  name  is  mentioned,  but  as  a  musician 
rather  than  as  a  poet  (Amos  vi.  5). 

(2)  Laws.  Analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  has  shown  con- 
clusively that  numerous  collections  of  Israelite  laws  were 
made  at  different  times,  before  any  part  of  our  present 
Pentateuch  had  received  from  the  people  generally  the 
recognition  which  was  afterwards  given  to  the  Canonical 
writings  of  Holy  Scripture.  Such  a  statement  in  no  way 
calls  in  question  what  we  may  call  the  Mosaic  basis  of 
the  legislation.  But  it  suggests  that  the  form  in  which 
the  laws  have  come  down  to  us  does  not  reproduce  them 

^  The  majority  of  the  Psalms  ascribed  to  David  are  to  be  found  in  Books 
I  (i-xli.)  and  II  (xlii-lxxii). 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON.  23 

in  the  shape  of  their  first  promulgation.  The  laws,  that  chap.  i. 
is  to  say,  are  not  transmitted  to  us,  stamped  with  the 
'  mark  of  their  first  ofScial  codification.  Rather,  they  con- 
'  tain  the  substance  of  the  legislation,  either  as  it  was 
handed  down  by  oral  tradition,  or  as  it  was  transcribed 
-  for  the  guidance  and  direction  of  rulers,  by  men  who  were 
eager  that  the  government  and  worship  of  Israel  should 
be  carried  out  in  the  spirit  of  the  great  Lawgiver,  and  on 
the  lines  of  the  revelation  that  had  been  made  to  him. 
In  either  case  they  have  been  modified  in  expression 
and  developed  in  detail,  in  order  that  they  might  be 
adapted  to  the  requirements  of  later  times.  The  import- 
ance of  a  servile  verbal  reproduction  was  not  therefore 
taken  into  account  in  the  degree  which  seems  essen- 
tial to  us  who  have  been  accustomed  for  centuries  past  to 
the  idea  of  an  unalterable  Canon  of  Scripture.  The  con- 
tinual change  of  circumstances  in  every  age  demands 
either  the  change  of  old  laws  or  the  creation  of  new  ones. 
One  thing,  however,  would  have  been  regarded  as  indis- 
pensable in  the  framing  of  new,  no  less  than  in  the  trans- 
mission and  modification  of  old  laws,  namely,  the  duty 
of  preserving  the  legislation  upon  the  old  lines  and  of 
attaching  the  requirements  of  new  circumstances  to  the 
terms  and  phraseology  even  to  the  external  setting  of  the 
most  ancient  precepts. 

Of  the  early  collections  of  laws  the  earliest  is  un-  TheDeca- 
doubtedly  to  be  seen  in  the  Moral  Code  of  the  Decalogue,  °^^^' 
which  was  inscribed  upon  the  two  tables  of  stone.  Two 
versions  of  the  Decalogue  are  found  (Ex.  xx.  1-17  and 
Deut.  V.  6-21),  which,  as  is  well  known,  differ  from  one 
another  in  certain  details  of  quite  inconsiderable  import- 
ance. But  the  fact  of  these  difTerences,  if  the  argument 
from  style  were  not  suf^cient  to  show  it,  points  to  the  De- 


24  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  I.    caloguc  having  originally  existed  in  a  still  shorter  form  ^. 
It  argues  also  the  freedom  with  which  the  compilers, 
the  Elohist'-^  and  the  Deuteronomist^  the  one  in  the  eighth 
or  ninth,  the  other  in  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  considered 
themselves  at  liberty  to  vary  the   form  in  which   the 
fundamental  Moral  Code  was  transmitted.     Both  writers 
have  introduced   some  touches  of  individual   style  and 
colouring  into  the  explanatory  clauses  of  the  longer  com- 
mandments, e.  g.  fourth  and  fifth.    They  have  not  thereby 
impaired  the  substantial  accuracy  of  their  record  ;  but,  by 
leaving  impressed  upon  the  Decalogue  itself,  the  literary 
stamp  of  the  age  to  which  they  respectively  belonged, 
they  showed  as  conclusively  as  it  was  possible  for  them 
\  to  show,  that,  in  their  days,  the  most  sacred  laws  of  Israel 
I  were  not  yet  fenced  about  with  any  scrupulous  regard 
i  for  the  letter  apart  from  the  spirit. 
j'/ie  Book         Another  collection  of  laws  of  the  greatest  antiquity  is 
Covenant,     prcscrvcd  in  the  so-called  '  Book  of  the  Covenant '  (Ex. 
XX.   20-xxiii.   0^'^.      It  is  a  disputed   point  whether   it 
has   been    incorporated    directly   into    the    Pentateuch 
from  the  writings  of  the  Jehovist^  or  whether  it  was 
introduced   by  the  hand  which  combined  the  Jehovist 
and  the  Elohist  writings.     In   either  case,  it  has  been 
derived  from  an  earlier,  and  doubtless  a  much  earlier, 
literary  source.      As  a  body  of  laws,  it  is  suited  to  the 

^  E.  g.  2nd  Commandment,  *  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  any  graven 
image.' 
4th  „  *  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy.' 

5th  „  *  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother.' 

loth  „  '  Thou  shalt  not  covet' 

In  this  short  form  they  could  easily  be  inscribed,  in  two  groups  of  five, 
upon  two  tablets. 

^  P'or  a  description  of  the  sources  from  which  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
Book  of  Joshua  were  compiled,  see  Driver's  Introd.  to  the  Literature  of  the 
O.  T.  (1891). 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR  A   CANON.  25 

needs  of  a  society  in  a  very  early  stage  of  civilization,  chap.  i. 
If,  as  may  well  be  allowed,  the  main  substance  of  its 
laws  has  descended  from  the  Mosaic  legislation,  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  it  has  also  at  different  times 
been  adapted  by  subsequent  revision  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  people,  when  they  were  in  the  enjoyment  of 
a  settled  agricultural  life.  Several  stages  must  have 
intervened  between  the  transcription^  of  the  laws  by  the 
Jehovist  and  their  original  promulgation.  Their  abrupt 
commencement  (xxi.  2),  the  loose  order  in  which  subjects 
(e.g.  xxi.  28-36,  xxii.  18-20,  xxiii.  19)  follow  one  another, 
the  frequent  breaks  in  the  thread  of  the  legislation, 
indicate  that  the  collection  is  not  to  be  regarded  in  the 
light  of  ail  exhaustive  official  code  of  statutes,  but  rather 
as  an  agglomeration  of  laws,  perhaps  transcribed  from 
memory  or  extracted  fragmentarily,  for  some  private 
purpose,  from  an  official  source. 

With  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  agree  very  closely 
the  laws  contained  in  Exodus  (xxxiv.  10-26),  which 
in  all  probabiHty  were  found  in  the  writing  of  the 
Jehovist.  Some  scholars  have  detected  another  group 
of  '  ten  words,'  a  second  Decalogue,  embedded  in  them 
(ch.  xxxiv.  27,  28).  The  identification  remains  a  matter 
of  uncertainty.  But  if  the  hypothesis  should  prove  to  be 
correct,  it  is  possible  that  we  should  recognize,  in  these 
two  instances,  traces  of  an  ancient  custom  of  assisting  the 
recollection  of  laws  by  collecting  them  in  groups  of  ten. 

Another  ancient,  and  very  distinct,  collection  of  laws  is  The  Law  of 
incorporated   in   the  section  which  has  been  called  by  ^°^''^^^^- 
scholars  '  The  Law  of  Holiness '  (Levit.  xvii-xxvi).    The 
form  in  which  this  collection  of  laws  has  come  down  to 
us,  reflects  in   some   degree,  no  doubt,  the  later   style 
which  characterizes  the  compilation  of  the  priestly  laws 


26 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


The  Deu- 
teronomic 
Laws. 


generally.  But  although  this  be  admitted,  it  is  a  fact, 
which  no  scholars  have  ventured  to  dispute,  that  these 
chapters  contain  extensive  excerpts  from  a  collection  of 
laws  whose  general  character  must  have  closely  resembled 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  differing  only  from  it  in 
subject-matter  so  far  as  it  is  occupied  more  generally 
with  ceremonial  than  with  civil  regulations. 

The  Deuteronomic  Laws  (Deut.  v-xxvi),  contain 
many  clear  instances  of  parallelism  with  the  Law  of 
Holiness.  But,  apart  from  parallelisms,  they  are  also 
clearly  dependent,  in  a  very  direct  manner,  upon  other 
earlier  collections  of  laws.  They  embody  the  substance 
of  existing  legislation,  and  they  expand  it  with  freedom 
of  purpose,  in  order  to  adapt  its  requirements  to  the 
circumstances  of  a  later  century.  The  writer  does  not 
create  new  laws.  He  accepts  the  form  in  which  they 
were  current  in  his  own  day.  He  employs  them  in  the 
spirit  of  a  true  prophet  of  Israel.  He  makes  them  the 
text  of  his  exhortation.  He  feels  the  religious  needs  of 
his  generation  may  be  met  by  the  interpretation  of  the 
spirit  of  the  laws  which  the  people  inherited  from  their 
forefathers.  Scholars  have  pointed  out  that,  while  there 
are  numerous  points  of  contact  with  '  The  Law  of  Holi- 
ness,' by  far  the  most  distinctive  feature  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic Laws  is  the  way  in  which  they  so  evidently  pre- 
suppose acquaintance  with  the  Decalogue  and  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  and,  so  far  as  they  differ,  contain  but  a 
development  of  their  teaching. 

The  use,  which  was  thus  made  of  collections  of  laws 
for  purposes  of  religious  instruction,  was  not  probably  an 
isolated  instance.  The  custom,  if  custom  it  was,  marks 
a  step  in  advance  towards  the  adoption  of  an  authorita- 
tive standard  of  teaching. 


i 


THE  PREPARATION  FOR  A  CANON.       27 

Modern  criticism  has  probably  shown  incontrovertibly  chap.  i. 
lat  the  period  of  the  final  literary  codification  of  the  rhePriestiy 
Pnestly  Laws  can  hardly  be  placed  before  the  era  of^'"'*'"^- 
ithe  Exile.  It  teaches,  however,  no  less  emphatically, 
that  the  Priestly  Lazvs  themselves  have  been  gradually 
developed  from  previously  existing  collections  of  regula- 
tions affecting  ritual  and  worship.  Of  this  result  of 
criticism  we  believe  a  clear  confirmation  can  be  obtained 
from  any  careful  comparative  study  of  their  enactments. 
Such  a  comparison,  candidly  drawn,  has  forbidden  us  tq' 
regard  the  Priestly  Laws  as  homogeneous,  or  as  the  pro- 
duct of  one  generation.  We  recognize  in  our  Pentateuch 
different  strata  of  priestly  and  ceremonial  laws.  They 
have  come  down  to  us  from  different  periods  of  the  his- 
tory. "When  we  once  grasp  this  idea  firmly,  we  see  that 
it  would  be  as  much  a  mistake  to  affirm,  that  the  Priestly 
Laws  were  created  e7i  bloc  in  the  days  of  the  Exile  or  of 
Ezra,  as  to  maintain  that  they  had  been  promulgated, 
in  the  form  in  which  they  have  come  down  to  us,  in  the 
days  of  Moses. 

The  importance  that  has  been  attached  to  the  subject 
of  the  Ritual  Law  compels  us  to  make  here  a  brief  ex- 
planatory digression.  Much  misconception  has  arisen.  Semitic  in- 
because  it  has  not  been  sufficiently  realised,  that  the  "^ ' " '''""^' 
merely  ceremonial  system  of  the  Israelite  religion  had 
its  roots  in  a  quite  prehistoric  antiquity.  It  is  clear  that, 
in  its  general  features,  it  resembled  the  ceremonial  sys- 
tems prevalent  among  the  religions  of  other  Semitic  races 
(cf.  Robertson  Smith's  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  56). 
At  the  call  of  Abraham  it  received  the  quickening  im- 
pulse of  a  new  spiritual  life.  But  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose,  that  the  rules  of  worship,  the  distinctions  of 
cleanliness,  and  the  regulations  of  sacrifice,  that  were 


28     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  I.  observed  by  the  patriarchs,  differed  substantially  from 
those  which  they  had  received  by  tradition  from 
a  period  when  their  forefathers  were  polytheistic  (Josh, 
xxiv.  2).  Rules  of  Sacrifice  (Gen.  xv.  10),  the  Rite  of 
Circumcision  (Gen.  xvii,  Ex.  iv.  24-26),  the  custom  of 
Tithe  payment  (Gen.  xiv.  20,  xxviii.  22),  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath  (Gen.  ii.  1-3,  viii.  10,  Ex.  xvi.  23),  Vows 
(Gen.  xxviii.  20),  all  these,  later  tradition  considered  to 
be  in  force  among  the  Israelites  before  the  Sinaitic 
covenant  was  concluded,  equally  with  the  prohibition  of 
moral  offences,  of  murder  (Gen.  ix.  4-7),  of  theft  (Gen. 
xxxi.  32,  xliv.  9),  of  adultery  (Gen.  xxxviii,  xlix.  4). 
In  respect  of  their  national  customs  and  institutions, 
which  were  nothing  if  not  part  of  their  religion,  we 
.  cannot  detach  the  people  of  Israel  from  the  great 
Semitic  stock  of  which  they  were  a  branch.  Nor  indeed 
can  we  altogether  leave  out  of  view  the  possibility  of 
a  survival  of  such  customs  from  an  earlier  stage  of 
religion  and  a  society  yet  more  primitive. 

The  Sinaitic  legislation,  so  far   as  it  related  to  the 
priesthood,   to    sacrifice,   to   ritual,   therefore,   was    in- 
tended not  so  much  to  create  a  new  system  as  to  give 
The  spirit  a  ncw  significance  to  that  which  had  already  long  existed 
than  the      amoug  Scmitic  races,  and  to   lay  the  foundation  of  a 
system.        higher  symbolism  leading  to  a  more  spiritual  worship. 
In  a  word,  it  was  not  the  rites,  but  their  spiritual  signifi- 
cance ;  not  the  ceremonial  acts,  but  their  connexion  with, 
and  interpretation  of,  the  service  of  Him  who  made  Him- 
self known  as  the  pure,  the  spiritual,  the  loving  God  of 
Israel,  that  determined  the  true  character  of  the  revela- 
tion granted  on  Mount  Sinai.     Then,  as  in  every  other 
epoch  of  religious  creativeness,  life  was  conveyed  not  by 
the  external  imposition  of  a  new  ceremonial,  but  by  the 


THE   PREPARATION    FOR   A   CANON.  29 

Infusion  of  a  truer  spiritual  force  into  the  customs  of    chap.  i. 
||)opular  worship,  making  them  instinct  with  new  mean- 
ling,  and  rescuing  the  souls  of  men  from   bondage   to 
|a  barren  externalism. 

Rules  of  sacrifice,  of  cleanliness,  and  of  worship  would  Priestly  tra- 
l^enerally  be  transmitted  from  one  generation  of  priests 
^o  another,  in  a  very  large  degree,  and  especially  in  early 
■  times,  by  oral  tradition.  But,  as  time  went  on,  a  written 
tradition  would,  sooner  or  later,  be  formed.  In  either  case, 
whether  committed  to  writing  or  entrusted  to  memory, 
a  stereotyped  cast  of  language  would  arise  from  the 
transmission  of  such  regulations  through  a  succession  of 
priestly  families.  It  is  this  stereotyped  cast  of  language 
which  is  reproduced  throughout  the  Priestly  Laws,  and 
which  itself  witnesses  to  their  derivation  through  long 
periods  anterior  to  their  compilation. 

What,  however,  is  the  verdict  of  modern  criticism,  so  Priestly 
far  as  collections  of  these  Priestly  Laws  are  concerned  ?  knmjon 
We  seem  to  be  brought  to  the  following  conclusion.  In  ^^{dified. 
the  pre-exilic  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  ritual  and 
_  ceremonies,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Priestly  Laws  of 
|the  Pentateuch,  are  undoubtedly  occasionally  referred  to  : 
the  references  do  nothing  more  than  testify  to  the 
existence  of  such  institutions  at  the  time  spoken  of. 
Unless  clear  traces  of  quotation  accompany  them,  they 
cannot  be  taken  to  prove  the  existence  of  one  authoritative 
code  of  Priestly  Laws.  Before  the  Exile,  quotations 
from  Priestly  Laws  are,  it  is  universally  admitted,  ex- 
ceedingly rare.  Their  rarity  and  doubtfulness  make 
it  probable  that  no  authoritative  collection  had  been 
made,  or,  at  any  rate,  officially  formulated  before  the 
era  of  the  Captivity.  On  the  other  hand,  the  few  cer- 
tain   quotations    which    are    to    be   found,   e.g.    Deut. 


30  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  t.  xiv.  4-20,  I  Sam.  ii.  2  2,  I  Kings  viii.  i  and  5,  may  indi- 
cate at  the  most,  that  collections  of  Priestly  Laws, 
possibly  of  a  private  nature,  existed  for  the  use  of 
priests  ^.  A  careful  comparison  of  the  detail  of  the 
Priestly  Laws  with  that  of  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy 
shows  conclusively,  that  the  codification  of  the  former  is 
later,  and  belongs  to  a  more  advanced  period  of  worship, 
than  the  age  of  the  Deuteronomist.  This,  however,  in 
no  way  invalidates  the  conclusion  upon  which  all  critics 
are  agreed,  that  in  the  Priestly  Laws  are  embedded 
groups  of  laws  derived  from  much  earlier  usage.  Un- 
mistakable instances  of  this  mixture  of  earlier  with  more 
recent  regulations  are  to  be  found  in  Lev.  i-viii,  xi-xv, 
Num.  V,  vi,  ix,  xv,  xix. 
Purpose  of       EnoLigh,  and  more  than  enough,  has  now  been  said 

collections  of  .  Y  .  1 1  • 

laws.  upon  the  laws,  to  convmce  us  that  various  collections 

of  laws  were  made  at  different  times  during  the  his- 
tory of  the  people.  Some  have  become  lost  to  view. 
Others  the  Hebrew  scholar  has  little  difficulty  in  dis- 
tinguishing even  now  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  clearly 
marked  characteristics  of  language,  which,  speaking 
generally,  distinguish  the  three  legislative  periods  repre- 
sented by  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic 
Laws,  and  the  Priestly  Laws,  force  themselves  upon  our 
notice. 

The  purpose  with  which  the  more  ancient  collections, 
to  which  attention  has  been  drawn,  were  made,  must, 
doubtless,  have  differed  in  different  cases.  Sometimes, 
the  object  may  have  been  to  render  assistance  to  a  ruler 

^  The  LXX.  text  in  i  Sam.  ii.  22,  1  Kings  viii.  1-5,  omits  the  language 
agreeing  with  the  tradition  of  the  Priestly  Laws. 

On  the  whole  of  this  intricate  question,  see  Driver's  Literature  of  the 
0,  T.  (p.  1 19-150),  which  appeared  since  this  chapter  was  written. 


I 


THE    PREPARATION   FOR  A   CANON.  3 1 


i 


or  a  judge  in  the  discharge  of  his  office;  sometimes,  Chap.  i. 
merely  to  preserve  an  oral  tradition,  which  threatened  to 
become  obsolete  ;  sometimes,  to  keep  intact  from  foreign 
or  idolatrous  taint  the  inherited  institutions  of  the  people. 
But  in  all  cases,  the  originator  of  the  collection,  were 
he  king,  priest  or  prophet,  would  have  promoted  its  for- 
mation for  the  benefit  of  his  people,  for  the  safeguarding 
of  their  society  according  to  the  law  of  Jehovah,  and  for 
he  preservation  of  the  pure  Israelite  Monotheism. 

One  point  remains  to  be  noticed,  which  arises  naturally  'The Law 
from  the  mention  of  collections  of  Israelite  law.  What 
is  the  sense  to  be  ascribed  to  the  words,  '  The  Law  of 
Moses,'  which  frequently  occur  in  the  later  portions  of 
the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  Chro- 
nicles, Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Daniel.  It  is  clear  that  they 
cannot  be  referred  to  any  one  particular  code  of  laws 
that  has  escaped  all  modification  from  later  times.  The 
fact,  now  so  clearly  established,  that  the  Laws  of  Israel,  as 
of  other  nations,  only  reached  their  final  literary  form  by 
development  through  gradual  stages,  must  show  conclu- 
sively, that  Moses  was  not  the  writer  of  them  in  the  form 
in  which  they  have  come  down  to  us,  and  in  which  they 
were  certainly  known  after  the  Exile.  But  just  as,  in 
Deut.  xxxi.  9  and  24,  Moses  himself  is  said  to  have 
committed  to  writing  the  law,  which  formed  the  nucleus 
of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  so  we  understand  the 
legislation  which  was  initiated  by  Moses  to  have  become 
expanded  into  the  complex  system  of  laws  included  in 
the  Pentateuch.  The  great  Lawgiver,  who  was  the 
founder,  became  also  the  personification  of  Hebrew 
legislation,  as  David  was  of  the  poetry,  and  Solomon  of 
the  wisdom  of  Israel^. 

*^  Cf.  Professor  Driver :  '  The  laws  even  in  their  developed  shape,  may 


32  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

chap^i.  As  has  often  been  shown,  the  word,  Torah,  is  only  asso- 
'  Torah:  ciated  with  the  idea  of  the  written  Law  after  the  Exile. 
Primarily,  it  means  '  a  pointing  out,'  an  individual  deci- 
sion, it  may  be,  on  a  moral  question  of  right  or  wrong,  or 
on  a  ceremonial  question  of  clean  or  unclean.  It  is  to 
be  remembered  that  in  early  Semitic  life  government 
was  largely  administered  by  means  of  *  Tordth,'  authori- 
tative decisions,  delivered  by  the  chief  or  judge  who  gave 
his  verdict  upon  the  basis  of  custom  and  precedent.  It 
was  the  reign  of  Themis,  or  of  what  we  might  call  Con- 
suetudinary Justice.  A  picture  of  such  an  administration, 
actually  conducted  by  Moses  on  such  lines,  stands  before 
us  in  the  narrative  of  Ex.  xviii.  13-27.  Priests,  as 
the  repositories  of  sacred  tradition,  were  required  to  give 
such  decisions  (cf.  Deut.  xvii.  9-12,  xxiv.  8,  Haggai  ii. 
II,  12) ;  and  in  the  Book  of  Micah  we  find  the  prophet 
rebuking  the  priests  for  taking  bribes  before  pronouncing 
sentence  (Micah  iii.  11). 

In  the  rebukes  which  the  prophets  deliver  against  their 
countrymen,  they  make  no  appeal  to  the  sacred  authority 
of  any  written  standard  of  law  or  doctrine.  The  pro- 
phet's utterance  is  derived  directly  from  God.  The 
prophet  is  a  spokesman  on  God's  behalf.  He  appeals 
to  no  authoritative  writing  which  should  regulate  the  life 
of  Israel.  Hosea  enumerates  the  ways  in  which  Jehovah 
had  made  himself  known  to  his  people,  '  I  have  also 
spoken  by  the  prophets,  and  I  have  multiplied  visions 
and  used  similitudes  by  the  ministry  of  the  prophets '  (xii. 
10).  But  he  makes  no  mention  of  the  ministry  of  a  written 
code  of  law  or  of  anything  corresponding  to  an  authori- 

be  supposed  to  have  been  attributed  to  Moses,  because  Hebrew  legislation 
was  regarded,  and  in  a  sense  regarded  truly,  as  derived  ultimately  from 
Vvax''  {Contemporary  Review f  Feb.  1890). 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON.  ^^ 

tative  Canon  of  Scripture.    It  is  true  that,  in  a  much  con-    chap.  i. 
troverted  passage  (viii.  1 2),  he  uses  the  words  *  Though  I 
write  for  him  my  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts.'     But 
considering  the  invariable  usage  of  the  word  '  law,'  or 
'Torah,'  before  the  Exile,  we  are  not  justified  in  sup- 
posing that  it  can  refer  here  to  any  book  of  ritual.     The 
allusion  is  probably  to  the  '  Torah  '  or  '  instruction '  of  the 
prophets  embodying  the  true  teaching  of  Jehovah.    This 
is  '  The  Torah,'  the  Law  of  the  Lord  (Hosea  iv.  6,  Amos 
ii.  4),  which  differed  so  widely  from  the  '  Torah  '  of  priests  ; 
it  was  concerned  with  no  mere  lists  of  statutes  touching 
ritual  and  cleanliness,  but  with  the  eternal  principles  of 
truth,  justice  and  mercy.     These  the  prophet  may  wellf 
have  known  in  a  written  form,  embodied,  even  in  his  ; 
time,  in  those  written  collections  of  moral  law  and  pro-  i 
phetic  teaching,  of  which  the  main  substance  may  have 
been  preserved  to  us, 

(3)  History.      The    composition    of   prose    narrative  History. 
among  the  Israelites  doubtless  belongs  to  a  later  stage 
of  literature  than  the  composition  of  ballads  and  primi- 
tive laws. 

In  the  records  of  the  Old  Testament  we  have  fairly  official  Re- 
clear  evidence  of  different  classes  of  prose  narrative.  '^°^^^' 
There  is,  for  instance,  the  narrative  of  the  official  me- 
moir. In  the  court  of  David,  and  of  his  successors  on 
the  throne,  we  find  the  scribe,  or  recorder,  occupying 
a  prominent  place  among  the  officials  (cf.  2  Sam.  viii.  16, 
XX.  24,  I  Kings  iv.  3,  2  Kings  xviii.  18,  &c.,  &c.).  The 
short,  dry,  record  of  the  official  chronicle  is  probably 
to  be  recognised  in  the  skeleton  structure  of  our  Books  of 
Kings.     Upon  the  mere  outline  of  events,  thus  officially 

fetched,  more  complete  histories  would  afterwards  be 
ilt  up  by  compilers,  who  made  extracts    from   these 


Hon. 


34     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

among  other  written  sources  of  information,  but  relied 
chiefly  upon  the  abundant  materials  of  oral  tradition  to 
furnish  them  with  a  narrative  of  living  interest. 

Compua-  Most  of  thc  histoHcal  books  of  the  Old  Testament 

are  unmistakeably  the  result  of  compilation.  It  is  not 
always  easy  to  say  where  the  compiler  is  simply  tran- 
scribing his  authorities,  and  where  he  is  himself  working 
up  and  redacting  material  derived  from  a  hundred 
different  sources.  It  is  generally  possible  to  analyse  a 
compilatory  work  so  as  to  reduce  it  to  its  main  com- 
ponent literary  elements.  But  it  becomes  a  precarious 
task,  one  on  which  we  cannot  place  much  reliance,  when 
the  attempt  is  made  to  break  up  each  of  those  component 
parts,  in  their  turn,  into  their  ultimate  constituents. 
Some  portions,  however,  in  the  historical  narrative  bear 
the  stamp  of  having  been  transferred,  in  their  entirety, 
directly  from  their  original  sources,  e.  g.  the  narratives  in 
Judges  xvii,  xviii,  xix,  the  older  narrative  of  the  life  of 
Saul  (i  Samuel  ix.  i-io,  xiii,  xiv),  and  the  narrative  of 
the  reign  of  David  (2  Samuel  ix-xx).  For  the  most 
part,  however,  the  compilation  of  a  Hebrew  narrative 
was  a  complex  and  artistic  process.  Previously  written 
accounts  were  condensed  or  expanded,  revised  or  re- 
written before  they  could  be  inserted  in  the  new 
history. 

OraiTradi-  Full  importance  must  be  granted  to  the  part  played 
in  Hebrew  narrative  by  the  direct  transcription  of  oral 
tradition.  We  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  brightness  and 
vividness  of  much  of  Hebrew  narrative  is  due  to  its 
having  been  derived  from  the  lips  of  practised  story- 
tellers. To  this  source  we  are  probably  indebted  for 
those  portions  in  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel 
which  are    regarded    as    presenting   the    best    style    of 


Hon. 


i 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON.  ^^ 

■Hebrew  prose.     With  them  we  must  associate  the  two 
[great  collections  of  narrative,  called  by  critics  the  Elo- 
ist  and  Jehovist  writings,  which  form  so  large  a  portion 
f  the  compilation  of  the  Pentateuch.     They,  too,  had 
een  compilations  ;  they,  too,  incorporated  early  written 
'ecords.     But  in  their  pure  and  simple  style,  resembling 
^closely  the  best  portion  of  Judges  and  Samuel,  we  trace 
he  influence  of  oral  tradition.    It  makes  itself  heard  and 
[felt  in  the  simple  conversational  prose,  in  the  vividness 
f  the  description  of  scenes,  and  in  the  naturalness  and 
ase  of  the  dialogue.     Scholars  have  been  divided    in 
opinion  as  to  the  date  to  which  these  two   great  nar- 
rative collections  should  be  assigned.     Very  probably 
their  composition  preceded  the  time  when  the  prophets 
Amos  and  Hosea  wrote.     The  fact,  however,  that  those 
two  prophets  allude  to  incidents  recorded  in  the  patri- 
archal narrative  of  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist  (Hosea  xii.  3, 
4,  12, 13  ;  cf.  Amosii.  9)  must  not  be  relied  on  too  confi- 
dently as  proof  of  their  acquaintance  with  the  precise 
materials  that  have  come  down  to  us.     The  prophets  do 
not  actually  quote  the  words  familiar  to  us  in  Genesis. 
The  narratives  would  be  current  in  popular  tradition. 
[They  may  possibly  have  existed  in  other  written  forms, 
lesides  those  which  have  been  incorporated  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch.    The  argument,  however,  whatever  be  its  value, 
derives  a  certain  degree  of  confirmation  from  the  beauty 
and  simplicity  of  the  style,  which  point  to  a  date  at 
which  Hebrew  prose  literature  was  neither  in  its  infancy, 
nor  yet  had  reached  the  beginning  of  its   decadence. 
Such  a  date  may  well  have  been  the  century  before  the 
ministry  of  Hosea  and  Amos. 

Accordingly,  we  have,  in  the  compilations  of  narrative, 
another  instance  of  the  tendency,  in  preexilic  times,  to 
D  2 


36     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  I.  collcct  together  literary  materials,  of  which  use  could  be 
Prophetic  made  for  the  purpose  of  providing  religious  instruction 
^NarrTu/e.  ^^^  ^^^  pcoplc.  It  is  interesting,  therefore,  to  find  that 
careful  critical  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  shows  that,  in 
all  probability,  the  Jehovist  and  Elohist  writings  were 
themselves  welded  into  one  historical  work,  dealing  with 
the  narrative  from  the  Creation  to  the  death  of  Joshua. 
The  existence  and  influence  of  this  compilation  are  pre- 
supposed in  the  writings  of  the  Deuteronomist,  so  that 
the  work  of  welding  them  together  can  hardly  be  later 
than  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  The  object  of 
the  compilation  was  obviously  a  religious  one.  It  was 
intended  to  give  the  history  of  the  Israelite  people  from 
the  beginning,  to  show  their  Divine  selection,  and  to 
testify  to  the  special  providence  which  had  delivered 
them  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt,  which  had  built  up 
the  constitution  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Covenant  of 
Sinai,  and  which  had  brought  the  people,  in  fulfilment  of 
the  promises  made  to  the  patriarchs,  into  the  possession 
of  the  land  of  Canaan.  We  fancy  that  the  construction 
of  this  vivid  retrospect  of  Israel's  early  history  must  have 
been  connected  with  the  efforts  of  the  prophets  to  en- 
courage a  more  pure  and  spiritual  religion.  They  fore- 
saw the  fall  of  the  Northern  kingdom  ;  the  danger  of 
the  sister  kingdom  could  not  be  disguised.  The  hope 
of  averting  this  catastrophe  lay  in  the  spiritual  reunion  of 
the  people.  Historical  narrative  played  its  part  by  re- 
calling to  memory  the  Covenants  made  of  old  with  the 
Patriarchs. 
Prophecy.  (4)  Prophccy.  What  has  just  been  said,  leads  us  to 
make  a  few  references,  at  this  point,  to  the  functions  of 
the  prophet,  and  to  the  commencement  of  the  system  of 
collecting  prophecies  in  writing. 


THE   PREPARATION   FOR   A   CANON.  37 

Communities  of  prophets  were  not  originally,  as  is  so    chap.  i. 
^  often  erroneously  supposed,  banded  together  for  purposes  xhTpro- 
I  of  study,  or  of  literature,  or  even  of  sedentary  devotion. •^^^^^^^'^^ 
I  From  the  earliest  notices   which  we  have  of  them  in 
'  Scripture  (i  Samuel  x),  we  gather  that  the  '  Sons  of  the 
Prophets '  thronged  together  for  the  purpose  of  inspiring 
\  the  common  people  with  rehgious  enthusiasm  by  prac- 
[  tices  of  ecstatic  fervour.     Their  conduct  and  life  may,  in 
;  some  respects,  be  illustrated,  as  has  often  been  pointed 
[out,  by  the  dervishes  of  the  East   in    modern    times. 
tThe    institution    of   prophets    was,  we    find    in    Holy 
[Scripture,  connected,  both  in  Palestine  and  in  the  ad- 
joining countries,  with  the  service  of  different  deities. 
The  reader  need  only  refer  to  the  narrative  in  i  Kings 
xviii  and  2  Kings  x,  to  see  how  conspicuously  the  pro- 
phets of  Baal  figured  in  one  great  crisis  of  the  history  of 
Israel. 

•  Throughout  the  days  of  the  Monarchy,  the  Exile  and 
even  after  the  Return,  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  appear 
constantly.  But  many  were  false  prophets,  professional  The  work 
deceivers  (cf.  i  Kings  xxii.  6-38,  Neh.  vi.  10-14,  Ezek.  iJg  ^  ^'^ 
xiii,  xiv) ;  the  majority  of  them  were  quite  inconspicuous  ^''''^^^^^^ 
(cf.  1  Kings  vi.  1-7).  Only  a  few  attained  to  any  great 
eminence.  The  leading  men  amongst  them  had  their 
disciples,  or,  as  they  were  called,  their  'sons'  (cf.  I  Samuel 
X.  13),  who  served  them,  imitated  them,  and  perhaps 
aspired  to  fill  their  place  (2  Kings  ii.  15).  The  greater 
prophets  were  consulted  on  all  occasions  of  difficulty  and 
trouble.  Their  reputation  frequently  spread  beyond 
their  immediate  neighbourhood  (cf.  2  Kings  v  and  vi). 
They  seem  to  have  had  special  days  for  teaching  the 
people  and  for  giving  answers  to  applications  made  to 
them  from  different   quarters   (2   Kings  iv.  23).      The 


3^  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  I.  reply  of  a  prophet  was  vouchsafed,  sometimes  upon 
matters  of  fact  (cf  i  Samuel  ix,  x,  i  Kings  xi.  26-40, 
xiv.  I -1 6),  sometimes  upon  questions  of  morality  (cf.  i 
Samuel  xv,  2  Samuel  xii.  1-14) ;  but  the  most  important 
part  played  by  the  prophet,  in  the  time  of  the  monarchy, 
was  when  he  came  forward  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  upon  questions  of  national  policy  (e.  g.  i  Kings  xi. 
26-40,  xviii.  I  ff ,  2  Kings  vii-ix),  to  encourage  (2  Kings 
xix.  20),  or  to  warn  (i  Kings  xxi.  17-22,  Isaiah  vii.  3-17). 
Each  prophetic  utterance  was  a  pointing  out,  a  '  torah,' 
an  instruction,  based  upon  the  principles  of  the  Law  of 
Jehovah. 
Sayings  of  The  morc  important  of  such  utterances  would  be  pre- 
rlpeated  \y  servcd  by  the  disciples  of  the  great  prophets.  In  earlier 
7o^)!jensed  ^imcs  they  were  probably  only  committed  to  memoiy. 
Afterwards,  as  the  practice  of  writing  became  more 
common,  they  would  be  transcribed,  sometimes  by  the 
prophet  himself,  sometimes  by  his  followers,  from  the 
recollection  of  the  utterance.  The  earliest  specimens  of 
prophetic  utterance,  committed  to  writing,  that  have 
come  down  to  us,  are  to  be  found  in  the  Books  of  Amos 
and  Hosea.  Whether  these  prophets  themselves  pre- 
pared them  for  publication  we  cannot  say.  Doubtless, 
by  comparison  with  the  actual  spoken  word  of  which  the 
prophets  delivered  themselves,  the  books  are  mainly 
condensations.  In  the  Book  of  Amos  the  work  of  con- 
densation has  been  done  so  dexterously  as  to  present  us 
with  a  smooth  and  flowing  style  ;  but  in  the  Book  of 
Hosea  the  process  of  condensation  was  not  so  skilfully 
effected, and  this  will  probably  account  for  the  enigmatical 
abruptness  and  obscurity  of  the  prophet's  style.  For 
another  extensive  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  groups 
of  prophecies  were  collected  and  summarised,  we  need 


THE   PREPARATION    FOR  A   CANON.  39 

only  refer  to  the  contents  of  the  first  portion  of  Isaiah    chap.  i. 
(i-xxxix)  ^. 

The  necessity  of  committing  their  utterance  to  writing  written. 

\  was  often  imposed  upon  the  prophets  by  the  refusal  of 
the  people  to  listen  to  their  warnings,  or  by  the  prohibi- 
tion, on  the  part  of  the  authorities,  of  liberty  to  speak  in 
the  hearing  of  the  people  (Amos  ii.  12,  vii.  12,  13, 
Micah  ii.  6).     It  is  for  some  such   reason  that   Isaiah 

;  solemnly  commits  to  his  disciples  the  charge  of  his  testi- 

^  mony  and  his  'torah'  (viii.  16-20). 

The  utterances  of  earlier  prophets  were  cherished  in 

*  the  memories,  or  in  the  tablets,  of  those  who  succeeded 
them.      We   find  that    Micah   and    Isaiah    quote  from 

\  the  same  utterance  of  some  prophet,  unknown  to  us, 
who  had  testified  before  their  day  (cf.  Isaiah  ii.  2-4 
and  Micah  iv.  1-3).  Whether  it  was  extant  in  writing, 
we  cannot  say.  But  the  preservation  of  prophecy  for 
the  benefit  of  disciples  was  only  a  step  in  the  direction 
of  continuous   formal   compositions  such  as  we  find  in 

'Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 

Thus  was  a  commencement  made  of  preserving,  in  Vaiueof 

:  writing,  collections  of  prophetic  utterances  intended  for  Prophecy. 

■-the  instruction  of  the  people.     In  vain,  it  seemed,  had 

:  the  witness  of  the  faithful  prophet  been  borne  by  word 
of  mouth  in  the  face  of  a  malignant  court  and  a  time^ 
serving  people.  But  the  very  rancour  of  princes,  the  very 
obstinacy  of  the  people,  their  very  refusal  to  listen,  their 
very  contempt  of  the  prophet's  speech,  were  overruled  to 
be  the  means  of  preserving  the  memorial  of  the  sacred 
message.  The  prophets  wrote  what  they  could  not  or 
might  not  utter.     The  true  value  of  the  written  collec- 

^  See  the  Commentaries  by  Cheyne  and  Dillmann,  and  Driver's  Isaiah^ 
his  Life  and  Times. 


40  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

tions  of  prophecy  was  thus  discerned.  Yet  not  at  once  ; 
only  through  the  discipline  of  the  exile  were  the  lessons 
of  prophecy,  that  had  been  preserved  by  the  writings  of 
the  prophets  and  their  disciples,  fully  taken  to  heart. 
For  our  purpose  it  is  enough  that,  in  the  collections  of 
prophetical  utterances  which  were  made,  some  by  those 
who  spake  them,  others  by  those  who  heard  them,  we 
may  recognise  another  advance  made  in  the  direction  of 
the  formation  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture. 


preserva-  As  to  the  mcthods  by  which  these  collections  of  songs 
writhigs,  laws,  narratives,  and  prophecies  were  made  and  trans- 
Zfnationaf  i^^ttcd,  we  havc,  it  must  be  confessed,  practically  no 
concern.  evidcncc.  It  is  sufficient,  however,  to  note  their  exist- 
ence, and  to  observe  in  passing  that,  in  the  extant 
memorials  of  Israel,  there  is  no  appearance  of  such 
collections,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Decalogue, 
having  ever  acquired  authority,  resembling  that  of 
Canonical  Scripture,  over  the  public  life  of  the  nation. 
We  might,  indeed,  fairly  infer  from  the  religious  thought 
which  characterizes  the  extant  remnants  of  these  collec- 
tions, that  their  contents  were  scarcely  likely  to  have 
been  in  agreement  with  the  forms  of  religion  which 
found  favour  with  the  people  during  the  greater  part  of 
the  monarchy.  In  proportion  as  they  approximated  to 
the  pure  spiritual  tone  and  religious  sincerity  of  the 
faithful  prophets  of  Jehovah,  they  must  have  come  into 
collision  with  the  cruder  externalism,  which  prevailed 
even  in  Jerusalem.  Their  worth  was  proved  in  the 
furnace  of  opposition.  Those  that  survived  the  ordeal 
were  destined  afterwards  to  receive  enduring  recognition. 
Tradition        fhc  prcscrvation  of  public  documents  in  a  place  of 

of  laws  kepi  ^  ^ 

inSanctu-    Safety,  and  therefore,  probably,  in  a  place  of  sanctity, 

ary. 


I 


THE   PREPARATION    FOR   A   CANON.  41 


was  doubtless  a  practice  observed  by  the  Israelites  as 
well  as  by  other  nations  of  antiquity.  The  evidence  is 
not  sufficient  to  show  that  any  of  the  collections  which 
we  have  described,  save,  possibly,  of  certain  laws,  camej 
under  the  category  of  documents  that  were  preserved' 
with  especial  care.  Out  of  the  passages  generally  quoted 
to  show  that  we  should  attribute  the  preservation  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  to  the  practice  of  storing 
archives  in  the  sanctuary,  one  passage  refers  to  the  two 
tables  of  stone  (Exodus  xl.  20),  three  passages,  to  the 
substance  of  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  (Deut.  xvii.  18, 
xxxi.  24-26,  2  Kings  xxii.  8)  ^ ;  one,  a  very  doubtful 
case,  to  a  writing  of  Joshua  which  has  not  survived 
(Joshua  xxiv.  26) ;  one,  to  a  law  of  the  monarchy,  of 
which  we  are  told  nothing  beyond  the  fact,  that  Samuel 
committed  it  to  writing  and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord 
(i  Samuel  x.  25).  At  the  most,  then,  it  may  be  said, 
tradition,  as  represented  by  these  passages,  favours  the 
view  that  some  portions  of  the  earliest  law  were  wont  to 
be  preserved  in  sacred  precincts.  But,  judging  from  the 
history,  it  does  not  appear  that,  until  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
any  such  portions  of  the  law  received  the  veneration  of 
the  people  to  which  they  afterwards  became  entitled. 
It  is  only  too  evident  from  2  Kings  xxii,  that  the  pre- 
servation of  a  book,  even  in  the  Temple,  afforded  no 
protection  against  forgetfulness  and  utter  neglect. 

The  habit  of  preserving  ancient  portions  of  the  law  in 
a  place  of  sanctity  was  not  identical  with  investing  them 
with  Canonical  authority.  Let  us  take  the  case  of  the 
Decalogue.  It  is  open  to  question,  whether  even  this 
sacred  nucleus  of  the  law  was,  in  all  times,  regarded  by 
the  people  of  Israel  as  authoritative.     If  it  was,  it  is 

^  On  '  the  Book  of  the  Law  '  in  2  Kings  xxii. 


of  Stone. 


42  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

strange  that  its  authority  should  not  have  been  more 
generally  recognized,  that  appeals  to  its  prohibition  of 
idolatry  should  not  have  been  made  by  kings  and  pro- 
phets who  were  bent  upon  the  purification  of  religion. 
Certainly,  if  its  position  had  been  that  which  later  usage 
learned  to  ascribe  to  it,  it  is  quite  unaccountable  that  so 
little  allusion  is  made  to  its  claims. 
Two  Tables  Nevertheless,  the  account  which  is  preserved  of  the 
two  tables  of  stone,  on  which  the  Ten  Words,  or  Com- 
mandments, were  inscribed,  shows  plainly  that  in  them 
we  have  the  nearest  approach  to  the  Canonical  Scriptures 
of  a  later  stage  in  the  people's  history.  It  appears  from 
a  statement  in  the  Books  of  Kings  that,  in  the  days  of 
Solomon,  the  tables  of  stone  were  still  preserved  in  the 
ark  within  the  Holy  of  Holies  (i  Kings  viii.  9).  But 
did  they  exert  any  practical  influence  over  the  religious 
life  of  the  people  ?  Our  answer  must  be  in  the  affirma- 
tive ;  they  may  have  remained  to  all  appearances  a  dead 
letter,  their  testimony  may  not  have  been  directly  ap- 
pealed to  by  the  prophets ;  but  on  them  had  rested  the 
whole  fabric  of  civil  and  religious  order.  They  were 
known  by  writers,  in  the  first  stages  of  Israelite  literature, 
to  contain  the  foundation  of  the  moral  law,  the  first 
'torah'  of  Jehovah,  (Ex.  xx.  1-17,  Deut.  v.  6-21). 

The  sanctity  of  the  two  tables  of  stone  is  inseparable, 
in  the  priestly  tradition,  from  the  sanctity  of  the  ark 
which  was  constructed  to  receive  them  ;  and,  as  we  know 
from  Jeremiah  (iii.  16),  the  sanctity  of  the  ark  was 
connected  in  the  remembrance  of  the  people  with  the 
earliest  stages  of  their  religious  history  ^.     The  Laws  of 

^  Outside  the  Hexateuch,  cf.  Jud.  xx.  27  ;  i  Sam.  iii-vi,  xiv.  18  ;  2  Sam. 
vi,  vii.  2,  xi.  II,  XV ;  i  Kings  ii.  26,  iii.  15,  vi.  19,  viii.  1-9,  21  ;  Ps.  cxxxii.  8, 
Chron.  pass. 


THE  PREPARATION  FOR  A  CANON.       43 

the   Decalogue   were  the  Testimony ;   so  the  ark  was    chap.  i. 
called  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony,  and  the  two  tables  of 
stone  the   Tables  of  the  Testimony.      The  Decalogue 
embodied  the  Covenant  of  Sinai ;  so  the  ark  was  called 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant. 

That  the   Ten    Commandments  were   considered   to  The  Tesn- 
contain    the  fundamental  charter  of  the  Israelite  con-  Z^ZaLn 
stitution,  is  a  view  that  has  sometimes  been  thought  to  ^fJ^^^^^^- 
receive  an  illustration  from  the  narrative  of  the  coro- 
nation of  Joash   (q,  Kings   xi.    12,  2   Chronicles  xxiii. 
1 1).     We  there  read  that  the  high  priest  Jehoiada  '  put 
the  crown  upon  him  and  gave  him  the  testimony,'  or,  as 
the   translation  is   more  literally,  'put   upon    him   the 
crown  and  the  testimony.'     The  traditional  interpreta- 
tion of  these  words  has  always  been,  that  the  high  priest 
either  rested  upon  the  head,  or  placed  in  the  hand,  of  the 
young  king  the  Tables  of  the  Testimony,  in  order  that 
the  royal  purpose  of  reigning  in  accordance  with   the 
Covenant  of  Sinai  might  thereby  be  symbolised.     The 
reading  of  the  passage,  however,  is  not  quite  certain.    The 
literal  translation  of  the  words  sounds  harsh  and  abrupt, 
to  say  the  least  of  it.     Is  the  text  at  fault  ?   Was  it  that  Text  of  2 
Jewish  scribes,  in  after  times,  left  out  the  words  ('the  two    ^^^^^^'  ^^' 
tables  of '),  hesitating  to  record  in   writing   what  they 
understood  in  the  mention  of  the  sacred  tables,  i.  e.  the 
removal  of  them  from  out  of  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony 
and  the  obtaining  of  them  from  the   Holy  of  Holies, 
which  was  inaccessible  to  all  save  to  the  high  priest 
alone,  and  to  him  only  once  in  the  year  ?     Or  was  it,  as 
has  been  suggested   by  some  recent  scholars,  that  the 
word    '  Testimony'    is   a  wrong  reading  and  that    the 
original  word,  in  the  place  of  which  'Testimony'  h.-a,s>  Proposed 
been  inserted,  meant  '  the   bracelets '  which  were    the  ^"^^"'^''^'''"- 


44  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

insignia  of  royalty  (cf.  2  Samuel  i.  lo)?  This  latter 
suggestion  is  ingenious  enough ;  for,  in  the  Hebrew 
spelling,  the  two  words,  rendered  ^  Testimony '  and 
'  bracelets,'  very  closely  resemble  one  another.  But  it 
is  an  objection  that  the  proposed  word  rendered  '  brace- 
let '  occurs  in  this  sense  only  once  elsewhere  in  the  Bible, 
(Isaiah  iii.  20)  ^.  It  is  a  much  more  serious  objection, 
that  the  substitution  of  the  word  *  Testimony '  for  the 
word  '  bracelets '  was  hardly  likely  to  have  been  made. 
'  Testimony,'  the  commoner  word,  was  the  harder  read- 
ing. There  was  nothing  which  would  tempt  a  scribe  to 
introduce  into  the  narrative  such  an  apparent  profana- 
tion both  of  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony  and  of  the  Holy 
of  Holies.  The  suggestion  therefore  of  a  false  reading 
does  not  commend  itself  on  the  ground  of  inherent  pro- 
bability. 

It  is  unfortunate,  that  critics  should  thus  have  at- 
tempted to  alter  the  significant  word  of  a  passage,  a 
word  which  happened  also,  apparently,  to  tell  against 
the  particular  views  which  the  critics  upheld.  '  Testi- 
mony' Is  the  reading  found  in  this  passage  in  both 
accounts  (Kings  and  Chronicles).  It  occurs  both  in  the 
Hebrew  and  in  the  Septuagint  text.  Now  the  word 
'  Testimony '  is  applied,  in  the  Priestly  portion  of  the 
Pentateuch,  to  the  tables  of  the  Law  (e.g.  Exodus  xxv. 
16,  21,  xl.  20),  and  to  the  ark  (e.g.  Exodus  xvi.  34,  xxvii. 
21,  Leviticus  xvi.  i^f)  xxiv.  3,  Numbers  xvii.  4,  10).  It  is 
obvious  therefore  that  the  occurrence  of  the  word,  in  its 
former  technical  sense,  in  this  passage  of  the  Book  of 
Kings,  might  be  claimed  as  proof  of  acquaintance  with 
the  phraseology  of  the  priestly  writings  of  the  Pentateuch, 
at  least  in  the  times  of  the  exile,  if  not  at  a  considerably 
'  rmy:?  'bracelets,'  nny  '  testimony.' 


THE   PREPARATION    FOR   A   CANON.  45 

earlier  date,  since  the  history  of  the  Jehoiada  episode  is  chap.  i. 
clearly  based  on  contemporary  records.  On  this  account, 
the  proposal  to  remove  so  significant  a  word  from  the 
text  can  hardly  escape  the  charge  of  appearing  either 
arbitrary  or  disingenuous.  It  seems  the  more  candid 
course  to  accept  the  reading  '  testimony,'  while  acknow- 
ledging that  the  text  may  not  be  free  from  suspicion. 

We  are  thrown  back,  therefore,  upon  the  former  alter- 
native, that  the  difficulty  in  the  reading  was  due  to  an 
omission,  which  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  hesita- 
tion of  scribes  to  record  an  apparent  instance  of  the 
profane  handling  of  the  tables  of  the  Law  and  the  viola- 
tion of  the  rule  respecting  the  sanctity  of  the  Holy  of 
Holies. 

The  difficulty,  however,  admits  of  another  solution.  Suggested 
Retaining  the  reading  '  Testimony,'  are  we  obliged  to 
restrict  the  meaning  of  the  word  to  its  special,  and,  ac- 
cording to  the  critics,  later,  technical  sense  of  '  the  tables 
of  stone? '  If  the  two  tables  had  survived  the  disasters 
of  Shiloh,  is  it  probable,  that  they  would  have  been 
brought  out  of  the  Ark,  or  fetched  from  the  innermost 
shrine  ?  The  '  Testimony '  may  surely  refer  to  the 
substance  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Covenant, 
without  necessarily  conveying  the  idea  of  the  two  stone 
tables  on  which  it  was  originally  inscribed.  The  contents 
of  the  Testimony  may  well  have  been  preserved  on 
parchment  or  on  tablets  (cf.  Isaiah  viii.  i).  The  re- 
quirements both  of  the  word  in  the  original  and  of 
the  context  in  which  it  occurs  are  satisfied  to  the  full, 
if  we  suppose  that  Jehoiada  handed  to  the  young 
king  a  roll  or  tablets,  on  which  was  inscribed  the 
fundamental  charter  of  the  constitution.  Whether 
such  a  charter  was  limited  to  the  Ten  Commandments, 


46  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

or  whether  it  contained  other  laws  that  are  embodied  in 
documents  which  have  been  incorporated  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, we  cannot,  of  course,  pretend  to  do  more  than 
conjecture.  But  it  is  a  natural  conjecture,  that  portions 
of  the  civil  law,  such  as  were,  for  instance,  formulated 
in  a  prophetic  form  by  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy,  may 
have  received  ratification  from  the  king  on  the  occasion 
of  his  enthronement  (cf.  Deut.  xvii.  14-20). 

But  a  Magna  Charta  is  not  a  Bible,  nor  can  the 
fundamental  law  of  a  constitution,  ratified  at  a  corona- 
tion, be  the  equivalent  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON. 
The  Book  of  the  Law. 

It  is  not  till  the  year  621  B.C.,  the  eighteenth  year   chap.  it. 
of  the  reign  of  King  Josiah,  that  the  history  of  Israel    621  b.c. 
presents  us  with  the  first  instance  of '  a  book/  which  was 
regarded  by  all,  king,  priests,  prophets,  and  people  alike, 
as  invested  not  only  with  sanctity,  but  also  with  supreme 
authority  in  all  matters  of  religion  and  conduct. 

The  book  had  been  discovered  in  the  house  of  God  Discoveryof 

t  t  TT-1       -r>'  TT-11-1  »-n>i  I-  •  the  Book  of 

by  the  High  rriest,  Hilkiah.  The  discovery  was  quite  fAe  Law. 
accidental ;  for  the  book  was  apparently  brought  to  light 
by  workmen  in  the  course  of  certain  structural  repairs  in 
the  Temple.  It  was  at  once  recognized  by  the  High 
Priest,  who  apprised  Shaphan,  the  scribe,  and  gave  it 
into  his  charge.  The  King  was  informed  of  the  start- 
ling intelligence,  and  he,  on  having  its  contents  read 
aloud  to  him,  was  thrown  into  sudden  and  vehement 
consternation.  He  despatched  messengers  to  consult 
the  prophetess  Huldah.  They  returned  with  the  dis- 
couraging reply,  that  the  woes  predicted  in  the  book 
could  not  be  averted.  Nothing  daunted,  Josiah  and  his 
counsellors  addressed  themselves  at  once  to  energetic 
measures  of  religious  reform.  The  worship  at  the  high 
places  which  King  Hezekiah,  nearly  a   century  before. 


48  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  II.  had  vainly  attempted  to  put  a  stop  to,  was  now  sum-] 
iisinjiuence.  marily  suppressed.  All  public  worship  of  Jehovah  was 
to  be  concentrated  at  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  1-20).  A  great  celebration  of  the  Passover  was 
kept  in  conformity  with  the  requirements  of  this  book, 
and,  w^e  are  told,  '  there  had  been  none  like  it  since  the 
days  of  the  Judges'  [yv.  21-23).  In  order  'that  he 
might  confirm  the  words  of  the  law  which  were  written 
in  the  book  that  Hilkiah  the  priest  found  in  the  house 
of  the  Lord,'  Josiah  put  away  '  them  that  had  familiar 
spirits  and  the  wizards  and  the  teraphim  and  the  idols ' 
{yer.  24) ;  and  amongst  the  relics  of  false  worship  which 
he  destroyed  we  have  particular  mention  of  images  used 
for  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies  (yv.  4-1 1).  The 
King's  action  had  the  support  of  the  whole  people. 
When  he  '  made  a  covenant  before  the  Lord  ...  to 
confirm  the  words  of  the  covenant  that  were  written 
in  the  book,'  it  is  added,  'and  all  the  people  stood  to 
the  covenant '  (yer.  3). 

In  this  familiar  scene,  'the  Book  of  the  Law  '  stands  in 
the  position  of  Canonical  Scripture.  It  is  recognized  as 
containing  the  words  of  the  Lord  (xxii.  18,  19).  Its 
authority  is  undisputed  and  indisputable.  On  the 
strength  of  its  words  the  most  sweeping  measures  are 
carried  out  by  the  King,  and  accepted  by  the  people. 
The  whole  narrative,  so  graphically  told  by  one  who 
was  possibly  a  contemporary  of  the  events  he  describes, 
breathes  the  conviction  that  the  homage  paid  to  '  the 
book,'  was  nothing  more  than  its  just  due. 
Its  contents.  Whcu  wc  enquire  what  this  '  Book  of  the  Law  '  com- 
prised, the  evidence  at  our  disposal  is  quite  sufficiently 
explicit  to  direct  us  to  a  reply.  Even  apart  from  the 
knowledge  which  we  now  possess  of  the  structure  of  the 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  49 


intateuch,  there  was   never  much  probability  in  the    chap.h. 
pposition,  that  the  book  discovered  by  Hilkiah  was 
identical  with  the  whole  Jewish  '  Torah,'  our  Pentateuch,  ^f  f'^'^ 

■^  '  "whole 

The  narrative  does  not  suggest  so  considerable  a  work.  Pentateuch, 
Its  contents  were  quickly  perused  and  readily  grasped. 
Being  read  aloud,  it  at  once  left  distinct  impressions 
upon  questions  of  national  duty.  Its  dimensions  could 
not  have  been  very  large,  nor  its  precepts  very  technical. 
The  complex  character  of  the  Pentateuch  fails  to  satisfy 
the  requirements  of  the  picture.  Perhaps,  too  (although 
the  argument  is  hardly  one  to  be  pressed),  as  it  appears 
that  only  a  single  roll  of  the  Law  was  found,  it  may  not 
unfairly  be  remarked,  that  the  whole  Torah  was  never 
likely  to  be  contained  in  one  roll ;  but  that,  if  a  single 
roll  contained  any  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  was  most 
probably  the  Deuteronomic  portion  of  it ;  for  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy,  of  all  the  component  elements  of  the 
Pentateuch,  presents  the  most  unmistakable  appearance 
of  having  once  formed  a  compact  independent  work  ^. 

But,  there  is  no  need  to  have  recourse  to  argu- 
ments of  such  a  doubtful  kind.  For  while  the  ^v\- but  collection 
dence  shows  that  a  completed  Torah  could  not  have  onom/cLaw. 
existed  at  this  time,  we  seem  to  have  convincing  proof 
that '  the  Book  of  the  Law '  was  either  a  portion  of  our 
Deuteronomy  or  a  collection  of  laws,  Deuteronomic  in 
tone,  and,  in  range  of  contents,  having  a  close  resem- 
blance to  our  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  evidence  is 
twofold.  (i)  The  description  which  is  given  of  the 
book  found  in  the  Temple  shows,  that,  in  its  most 
characteristic  features,  it  approximated  more  closely 
to  portions  of  Deuteronomy  than  to  any  other  section 

^  Cf.  Ps  xl.  7 :    *  In  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  prescribed  to  me'  :    with 
Prof.  Kiikpatrick's  note  (Psalms,  vol.  1.  Camb.  Bible  for  Schools), 


50  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  II.  of  the  Pentateuch.  (2)  The  historian,  from  whom  we 
obtain  the  account,  appears,  when  he  speaks  of  'the 
law,'  to  have  in  view  the  Deuteronomic  section,  and 
scarcely  to  be  acquainted  with  any  other.  These  argu- 
ments have  been  frequently  and  fully  discussed  in  other 
works,  so  that  we  need  not  here  do  more  than  sum- 
marize them  very  briefly. 
Evidence  (i)    The  dcscHption  of  the  book  shows  that,  in  its 

/^  z?^'/'^''^  most  conspicuous   features,  it  was  in   close   agreement 

with  the  contents  of  Deuteronomy. 
{a)  Presence       (o)    The   book   Contained   denunciations   against   the 
ciattTn.^     neglect  of  the  covenant  with  Jehovah  (2  Kings  xxii.  11- 
13'  16,  17). 

Now  the  Pentateuch  contains  two  extensive  passages 
describing  the  fearful  visitations  that  should  befall  the 
people  of  Israel  for  following  after  other  gods  (Lev. 
xxvi ;  Deut.  xxviii-xxxi).  Of  these,  the  passage  in 
Deuteronomy  is  the  longest,  and  while  the  passage  in 
Leviticus  would  be  calculated  to  produce  a  very  similar 
impression,  it  may  be  noticed  that  the  words  of  Huldah, 
in  referring  to  the  curses  contained  in  '  the  Book  of  the 
Law,'  possibly  contain  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxviii.  37, 
xxix.  24  (cf  2  Kings  xxii.  19).  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that  one  or  other,  or  both  of  these  denunciations,  must 
have  been  included  in  Josiah's  '  Book  of  the  Law.' 
ib)  Reforms      (^)    The   rcforms  carried  out   by  the    king-   and    his 

Prodticed  by        "^  J  .  ,  ,  .  ^  ,  r        i        -n. 

book.  advisers,  m  order  to  obey  the  commands  of  '  the  Book 

of  the  Law,'  deal  with  matters  all  of  which  are  mentioned, 
with  more  or  less  emphasis,  in  the  Deuteronomic  legis- 
lation, (i)  The  principal  religious  reform  carried  out  by 
Josiah  was  the  suppression  of  the  worship  at  the  high 
places,  and  the  concentration  of  worship  at  the  Temple. 
No  point  is  insisted  on  so  frequently  and  so  emphatically 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  51 

the  Deuteronomic  laws  as  that  all  public  worship  is  to  chap.  ii. 
be  centralised  at  the  one  place  which  Jehovah  himself 
should  choose  (Deut.  xii.  5  ^r\d  passim),  (ii)  Josiah  took 
measures  to  abolish  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
a  form  of  idolatry  distinct  from  the  worship  of  Baal  and 
Ashtoreth.  His  action  is  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of 
Deuteronomic  laws  (Deut.  iv.  19,  xvii.  3).  There  alone 
in  the  Pentateuch  this  particular  form  of  idolatry  is  com- 
bated. For,  although  it  had  existed  in  an  earlier  time, 
it  does  not  seem  to  have  infected  the  religion  of  Israel 
until  late  in  the  monarchical  period  (cf.  2  Kings  xxi.  3, 
5,  xxiii.  4,  5,  12).  (iii)  Josiah  celebrated  the  Feast  of  the 
Passover  (2  Kings  xxiii.  21-23)  in  accordance  with  'the 
Book  of  the  Law': — we  find  the  Law  of  the  Passover 
laid  down  in  Deut.  xvd.  1-8.  (iv)  Josiah  expelled  the 
wizards  and  diviners  from  the  land  in  express  fulfilment  of 
*  the  Book  of  the  Law '  (2  Kings  xxiii.  24) :  we  find  the 
prohibition  of  this  common  class  of  impostor  in  Oriental 
countries  expressed  in  strong  language  in  Deut.  xviii.  9-14. 

It  is  not,  of  counse,  for  a  moment  denied  that  laws, 
dealing  with  these  two  last  subjects,  are  to  be  found 
elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch.  But  as  in  all  four  cases 
Josiah's  action  was  based  upon  'the  law,'  whatever  '  the 
law '  was,  it  must  have  dealt  with  '  feasts '  and  with 
'  wizards '  as  well  as  with  '  concentration  of  worship ' 
and  '  star-worship,'  In  the  Deuteronomic  laws  all  four 
points  are  touched  upon. 

{c)  The  book  found  in  the  Temple  is  designated  'the  ^f^jf^J^^i", 
Book  of  the  Covenant'  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2,  21),  and  \t  Covenant. 
appears  that  it  contained  a  covenant,  to  the  observance 
of  which  the  king  solemnly  pledged  himself  (id.  3). 
In  the  Pentateuch  we  find,  it  is  true,  a  mention  of  '  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant'  (Ex.  xxiv.  7),  by  which  the 
E  2 


SZ  THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  II.  substancc  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation  (Ex.  xx-xxiii) 
seems  to  be  denoted.  But  it  is  clear,  from  the  fact  that 
the  section,  Ex.  xx-xxiii,  contains  no  denunciation ; 
from  the  fact  that  it  contains  only  the  very  briefest 
notice  of  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  and  then  under 
another  name,  'the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  '  (Ex. 
xxiii.  15);  from  the  fact  that  it  makes  no  mention  of 
either  wizards  or  star-worship ; — that  this  portion  of 
the  Israelite  law  cannot  be  '  the  covenant '  referred  to  in 
2  Kings  xxiii.  On  the  other  hand,  an  important  section 
at  the  close  of  our  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  occupied 
with  a  '  Covenant ' ;  and  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  that 
a  '  Book  of  the  Law,'  which  was  also  '  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,'  must  have  included  such  passages  as  Deut. 
xxix.  I,  'These  are  the  words  of  the  covenant  which 
the  Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children 
of  Israel ' ;  ver.  9,  '  Keep  therefore  the  words  of  this 
covenant'  ;  ver.  14,  'Neither  with  you  only  do  I  make 
this  covenant  and  this  oath ' ;  ver.  21,  'According  to  all 
the  curses  of  the  covenant  that  is  written  in  the  book  of 
the  law ' ;  vers.  24,  25,  '  Even  all  the  nations  shall  say, 
Wherefore  hath  the  Lord  done  thus  unto  this  land  ?  .  .  . 
Then  men  shall  say,  Because  they  forsook  the  covenant 
of  the  Lord.' 
2.  Evidence  (%)  The  historian  who  has  preserved  to  us  the  narra- 
Booksof  tive  of  the  finding  of  'the  Book  of  the  Law'  himself 
^"^^^-  quotes  directly  from  '  the  law '  in  two  passages,  and  in 
both  instances  from  Deuteronomic  writing.  In  i  Kings 
ii.  3,  'And  keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord  thy  God  to  walk 
in  His  ways,  to  keep  His  statutes  and  His  command- 
ments and  His  testimonies,  according  to  that  which  is 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  that  thou  mayest  prosper  in 
all  that  thou  doest  and  whithersoever  thou  turnest  thy- 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  S3 

self,'  the  words  used  are  characteristically  Deuteronomic,  chap.  ii. 
and  the  thought  is  possibly  based  on  Deut.  xvii.  18-20 
(cf.  Josh.  i.  8).  In  2  Kings  xiv.  6,  '  But  the  children  of 
the  murderers  he  put  to  death  ;  according  to  that  which 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  the  Lord 
commanded,  saying,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to 
death  for  the  children,'  the  citation  is  taken  almost 
word  for  word  from  Deut.  xxiv.  16.  In  numerous 
characteristic  expressions  and  phrases  the  compiler  of 
the  Books  of  Kings  shows  a  close  acquaintance  with  the 
Deuteronomic  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  though  no- 
where, perhaps,  so  frequently  as  in  i  Kings  viii,  ix,  e  g. 
viii.  51  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  20),  ix.  3  (cf.  Deut.  xii.  5),  ix. 
7,  8  (cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  37,  xxix.  24).  Generally  speak- 
ing, where  reference  is  made  to  '  the  law  '  in  the  Books  of 
Kings,  the  allusion  can  only  be  satisfied  by  a  reminis- 
cence of  a  Deuteronomic  passage.  Thus,  exclusive  of 
the  two  passages  already  quoted,  may  be  noted  i  Kings 
viii.  9  (cf.  Deut.  x.  5,  xxix.  i),  ^^  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  20),  S^ 
(cf.  Deut.  xii.  9,  10,  xxv.  19),  2  Kings  x.  31,  xviii.  12, 
xxi.  8,  xxii.  8,  xxiii.  25. 

If,  therefore,  the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings  iden- 
tified '  the  law  of  Moses  '  and  '  the  book  of  the  law ' 
with  Deuteronomy,  or,  at  least,  with  a  Deuteronomic 
version  of  the  law,  we  may  nearly  take  it  for  granted, 
that,  in  his  narrative  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  when  he  men- 
tioned 'the  Book  of  the  Law '  without  further  description, 
he  must  have  had  in  his  mind  the  same  Deuteronomic 
writings  with  which  he  was  so  familiar. 

The  language  of  the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings  Conclusion. 
tends  therefore  to   strengthen  the   argument  from   the 
effect  produced  by  the  perusal  of  '  the  Book  of  the  Law,' 
and  from  the   nature   of  the    reforms   based   upon   its 


54 


THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Previous 
history  of 
book. 


A  theory: 
forgery  by 
Hilkiah. 


authority.  We  see  no  reason  to  question  the  accuracy  of 
the  conclusion,  that  '  the  Book  of  the  Law'  found  in  the 
house  of  God,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  King  Josiah's 
reign,  was  substantially  identical  with  the  Deuteronomic 
portion  of  our  Old  Testament. 

If  this  be  granted,  we  have  next  to  inquire  into  the 
previous  history  of  this  book.  Had  it  ever  before  received 
the  recognition  which  it  received  in  Josiah's  reign?  Had 
it  ever  before  been  known  as  a  sacred  writing  whose 
authority  could  be  recognised  as  paramount  over  the 
kingdom  of  Judah?  In  other  words,  was  its  position  of 
canonical  authority  in  Josiah's  reign  a  restoration  to 
prestige  previously  enjoyed?  or  was  it  due  to  a  combina- 
tion of  especially  favourable  circumstances,  that  a  writing, 
never  before  so  recognized,  was  now,  for  the  first  time, 
promoted  to  a  position  of  religious  pre-eminence  in 
the  nation  ? 

To  these  questions,  the  scholars  who  suppose  the  com- 
position of  the  book  to  have  been  the  work  of  Hilkiah 
himself  and  of  his  friends,  and  who  ascribe  its  discovery, 
not  to  chance,  but  to  collusion,  have  no  difficulty  in 
making  reply.  Viewed  from  such  a  point  of  view,  the 
book  played  a  part  in  a  clever  intrigue  conducted  by 
the  priests  at  Jerusalem,  who  aimed  at  dealing  a  finishing 
stroke  to  the  rival  worship  at  the  high  places. 

But  we  have  no  reason  to  impugn  either  the  accuracy 
or  the  sincerity  of  the  historian,  who  describes  an 
incident  of  which  he  was  possibly  a  witness  ^.  An  unpre- 
judiced perusal  of  his  narrative  leaves  the  impression, 
that  he  has  no  shadow  of  a  suspicion  of  the  discovery 


^  For  according  to  some  scholars  (e.  g.  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen)  the 
compilation  of  the  Books  of  Kings  took  place  before  the  exile  and  only 
received  a  few  additions  at  a  later  revision. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  ^^ 

[having  been  anything  else  but  a  fortunate  accident,  and    chap.  ii. 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  those  living  at  the  time,  the  book 

I  was  supposed  to  have  existed  long  ago  and  to  have  been 

llost. 

Assuming  then  that  this  Deuteronomic  '  book  of  the  Unknown. 

Ilaw  '  was  honestly  regarded  as  an  ancient  book  in  the  oZ^bL 

leighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  we  must  take  into  considera- 

» tion  the  following  facts  : — 

(j)  That  never  before,  on  the  occasion  of  a  religious 
reform,  do  we  find,  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  any 
appeal  made  to  the  authority  of  a  book  ;  (2)  that,  even  in 
Hezekiah's  reign,  the  attempt  to  suppress  the  high  places 
was  not,  so  far  as  the  history  tells  us,  supported  by  any 
such  appeal ;  (3)  that  the  earlier  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea, 
Micah,  and  Isaiah  (I),  give  no  certain  sign  of  having  been 
influenced  by  the  Deuteronomic  law.  Of  course,  as  has 
been  already  pointed  out,  ancient  laws  are  copiously 
incorporated  in  Deuteronomy,  and  the  mere  mention  of 
institutions  and  customs,  which  are  spoken  of  in  Deuter- 
onomy, does  not  prove  the  existence  of  the  book  itself. 
The  force  of  the  argument  from  silence,  however,  will  at 
once  be  appreciated  when  the  pronounced  influence  of  the 
Deuteronomic  writings  upon  the  style  of  authors,  to  whom 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  well  known,  e.  g.  Books 
of  Kings,  Jeremiah,  and  Zephaniah,  is  fully  taken  account 
of.  There  is  nothing  parallel  to  it  in  the  undoubtedly 
earlier  Hebrew  literature.  The  inference  is  obvious  :  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  in  the  earlier  period,  was  either 
not  yet  composed  or  not  yet  known.  But  if  written, 
could  it  have  failed  to  escape  the  notice  of  Amos, 
Hosea,  and  Isaiah,  and  to  leave  on  them  something  of 
the  mark  it  made  on  later  literature  ? 

One  well-known  passage  (Isaiah  xix.  19)  should  he^s.xix.19. 


,^6  THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  II.  Sufficient  to  disprove  the  possibility  of  that  prophet's 
acquaintance  with  the  Deuteronomic  law.  '  In  that  day 
there  shall  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  (mazzebah)  at  the  border 
thereof  to  the  Lord.'  Isaiah  could  hardly  have  said  this 
if  he  had  been  acquainted  with  the  prohibition  of  Deut. 
xvi.  22,  'Thou  shalt  not  set  thee  up  a  pillar  (iitazzebaJi) 
which  the  Lord  thy  God  hateth.'  Nor  is  the  reply  satis- 
factory that  Isaiah  refers  to  the  soil,  not  of  Palestine,  but 
of  Egypt ;  for  the  prophet  is  contemplating  a  time  when 
all  the  world  should  be  subject  to  the  'law'  of  Israel's 
God-^.  It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  the  Deuteronomic 
'book  of  the  law'  was  not  known  to  Isaiah  or  his  prophetic 
predecessors,  and  could  hardly  have  been  written  before 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  When,  in  addition  to  this,  the 
marked  characteristics  of  his  style  correspond  to  those 
which  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  writing  of  the  6th  and 
latter  part  of  the  7th  cent.  B.C.,  it  is  the  most  natural  con- 
clusion, that  the  literary  framework  of  the  book  is  not 
to  be  placed  earlier  than  the  close  of  Isaiah's  ministry 
(circ.  690  B.C.). 
Possible  date  The  couclusion  to  which  we  incline  is  that  the  book 
o^^com  ost-  ^^^  compiled  in  the  latter  part  of  Hezekiah's,  or  in  the 
early  part  of  Manasseh's,  reign.  Under  the  idolatrous 
reaction  that  took  place  in  the  reigns  of  Manasseh  and 
Amon,  such  a  work,  breathing  the  fervent  spirit  of  the 
purest  worship  of  Jehovah,  may  well  have  disappeared 
from  view,  whether  forcibly  suppressed  or  silently  with- 
drawn.    Its  recognition  by  Hilkiah  shows  that  a  recollec- 

^  Cf.  Is.  xix.  21,  'And  the  Lord  shall  be  known  to  Egypt,  and  the 
Egyptians  shall  know  the  Lord  in  that  day  ;  yea,  they  shall  worship  with 
sacrifice  and  oblation,  and  shall  vow  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  and  shall  perform 
it.' 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE  CANON.  57 

tion  of  the  laws  was  retained  among  the  priests.     The   Chap.  ii. 
narrative  shows  also  that  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
^aws  was  not  to  be  found  outside  the  priesthood  and  the 
prophets. 

Even  by  those  who  do  not  share  the  view  here  put 
Drward  with  respect  to  the  date  of  its  composition,  the 
admission  is  generally  made,  that,  at  no  time  previous 
to  Josiah's  reign,  is  there  any  evidence  of  such  a  book 
having  exerted  what  we  should  call  canonical  authority 
over  the  people. 

In  order  to  acount  for  the  extraordinary  regard  thus 
manifested  for  '  the  book  of  the  law,'  we  must  under- 
stand the  nature  of  its  contents.  Two  mistakes  have 
commonly  been  made  with  respect  to  the  Deuteronomic  Deutero- 
laws.  On  the  one  hand,  it  has  been  assumed,  and  \^^^Not aii repe- 
name  '  Deuteronomy  '  is  partly  accountable  for  it,  that  ^f^"//^^^^ 
the  book  consists  solely  of  a  reiteration  of  the  laws  con- 
tained in  previous  codes.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
supposed — and  the  theory  that  it  was  composed  to  aid  a 
priestly  intrigue  would  support  the  idea — that  the  book 
consists  of  a  new,  a  second,  code  of  laws.  A  closer  inspec- 
tion of  its  contents,  and  a  comparison  with  the  other 
laws,  show  the  erroneousness  of  both  suppositions.  It  is 
not  a  reiteration  of  the  Sinaitic  laws.  For,  while  it 
doubtless  repeats  some  unchanged,  it  reproduces  others 
so  far  altered  and  modified,  that  their  identity  is  only 
faintly  discernible.  Such  alterations  and  modifications 
illustrate  the  interval  of  time  which  separates  the  later 
legislation  from  that  of  '  the  Book  of  the  Covenant '  (Ex. 
xx-xxiii).  Again,  it  is  not  a  new  legislative  creation  ; 
for  even  where  its  precepts  differ  from  the  older  laws, 
it  is  the  difference  which  arises  from  expansion  and 
development  rather  than  from  contradiction.     The  fact 


58 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Chief  cha- 
racieristic. 


Book  not 

needed 

before. 


Crisis  in 
^th  Cent. 


that  its  legislation  rests  upon  earlier  laws  is  admitted  on 
all  hands. 

But  the  characteristic  feature  of  theDeuteronomic  'book 
of  the  law '  is  its  homiletic  setting.  Its  oratorical  style, 
so  smooth,  so  copious  and  redundant,  and  yet  so  impas- 
sioned, distinguishes  its  literary  form  from  that  of  any 
formal  official  code.  It  forbids  us  to  assign  Deuteronomic 
literature  to  any  early  date.  It  marks  at  once  the  age 
from  which  its  composition  springs.  It  conveys  no  less 
clearly  the  purpose  of  popular  exhortation,  with  which 
some  ardent  prophet  moulded  into  its  present  shape  a 
collection  of  his  people's  laws. 

Collections  of  laws,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  previous 
chapter,  had  been  made  at  different  times  and  with 
different  objects.  Hitherto  the  possessors  of  the  laws 
had  been  the  priests  and  the  prophets — the  official  re- 
positories of  the  religion  and  of  the  learning  of  the 
people.  The  community  generally  had  not  felt  the  need  of 
a  book  of  religion.  They  had  been  able  to  have  recourse 
to  the  priests  at  the  local  altars  ;  they  had  been  able  to 
consult  the  prophets  who  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ; 
they  had  been  able  to  repair  to  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem, 
where  the  High  Priest  was  invested  with  the  Urim  and 
Thummim. 

But  at  the  beginning  of  the  7th  cent.  B.C.  a  crisis  was 
evidently  at  hand.  The  efforts  of  Hezekiah  had  recently 
been  exerted  to  put  down  the  local  worship  at  the  high 
places.  The  high  places  were  a  constant  obstacle  to 
the  spiritual  development  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  ; 
they  possibly  also  impeded  the  attempts  of  statesmen  to 
reunite  all  Israel  at  Jerusalem,  after  Samaria  had  fallen. , 
But  the  abolition  of  the  high  places  must  have  seemed  to 
the  common  people  like  the  annihilation  of  the  constant 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  59 

witness,  to  be  found  '  on  every  high  hill/  to  the  reality  chap.  11. 
of  their  religion.  The  removal  of  the  priests,  who  for 
centuries  had  presided  over  local  and  family  festivals, 
offered  the  daily  evening  sacrifice,  and  decided  every 
doubtful  point  of  faith  or  honesty  or  '  cleanliness/  must 
have  seemed  like  the  withdrawal  of  sentinels  from  their 
post,  and  the  surrender  of  the  country-side  to  the  mercies 
of  the  invaders'  gods.  Then,  too,  the  successes  of  the. 
Assyrian  armies  favoured  the  idea,  that  they  were  the 
strongest  gods  that  presided  over  the  most  powerful 
legions.  All  the  old  tendency  to  idolatrous  j^oicrer 
^ism  received  a  fresh  impulse  from  the  introduction 
of  new  thoughts  and  strange  superstitions  from  the  banks 
of  the  Euphrates. 

Lastly,  there  was  present  to  every  thoughtful  and 
devout  mind  the  warning  conveyed  by  the  overthrow  of 
the  Northern  Kingdom.  Was  it  not  possible  that  such 
a  disaster  was  impending  over  Judah  too.?  And  what 
was  there  of  true  vitality,  which  could  uphold  the 
religion  of  Jehovah,  if  the  Temple  should  be  over- 
thrown, its  courts  desolated,  its  altar  laid  in  ashes  ? 
If  that  fatal  blow  should  come,  was  the  life-blood  of 
the  nation's  faith  to  ebb  at  once  away  ?  Were  the  men 
of  Judah,  like  their  brethren  of  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
to  be  poured  out  like  water  on  the  sand  and  lost  ? 

Then,  we  may  suppose,  one  or  more  of  the  prophets  of  Prophets 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  arose,  and  sought  to  supply  the  sore  spiritual 
religious  need  of  their  countrymen.     The  people's  laws,  /^/^^^^ 
which  had  lain  hitherto  too  much  in   the  hands  of  the 
princes  and  their  priests,  these,  they  resolved,  should  now 
be  made  known  to  all.      But  the  mere  publication  of 
a  group  of  laws  would  do  little  to  quicken  the  conscience, 
or  inspire  the  enthusiasm      Accordingly,  the  laws  only 


not  a 

priest's^ 

book. 


60  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

constitute  the  framework  for  the  real  message,  a  setting 
for  a  great  hortatory  appeal.  The  legislation  thus 
published  was  clearly  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive. 
Not  so  much  a  complete  code  as  a  group  of  excerpts 
from  the  statute-book,  the  tegal  portion  furnished  but 
the  basis  for  prophetic  teaching.  Behind  all,  there  hangs 
the  sombre  background  of  warning,  and  the  denunciation 
based  on  the  recollection  of  the  captivity  which  had 
already  swept  away  the  kingdom  of  the  northern 
tribes. 

A  people's,  Thus  wcrc  the  old  laws  presented  in  a  popular  form, 
as  the  '  people's  book,'  combining  creed  and  law,  exhort- 
ation and  denunciation.  It  was  a  prophet's  formula- 
tion of  The  lav/  of  Moses,'  adapted  to  the  requirements 
of  that  later  time.  '  The  law,'  in  the  guise  of  prophecy, 
this  might  become  a  spiritual  rallying-point  for  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  ;  it  might  be  the  means  of  upholding  spiritual 
life  even  in  the  overthrow  of  national  hopes. 

Secret  of  Such  an  explanation  satisfactorily  accounts  for  the  com- 

bination of  the  homiletic  style,  characteristic  of  literature 
in  the  seventh  and  sixth  cent.  B.C.,  with  a  formulation  of 
laws  which  included  some  of  the  most  ancient  statutes. 
Nor  is  it  difficult  to  understand  how  such  a  work,  dur- 
ing the  reactionary  reign  of  Manasseh,  became  lost  to 
view.  That  its  accidental  discovery  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  King  Josiah  produced  so  astonishing  an  effect 
can  well  be  imagined.  The  evils,  which  the  prophet 
writer  or  writers  had  sought  to  combat,  had  grown 
in  intensity  during  the  seventy  or  eighty  years  which 
had  elapsed.  The  reform, so  necessary  before,  culminating 
in  the  abolition  of  the  high  places,  which  Hezekiah  had 
failed  to  carry  out  successfully,  had  now  been  •  long 
delayed  :   the  difficulty  of  effecting  it  must  have  become 


its  power. 


THE    BEGINNINGS  OF  THE   CANON.  6l 

proportionately  greater ;  the  flagrant  indulgence  in  open  chap.  n. 
idolatry,  under  the  patronage  of  the  court,  had  raised  yet 
more  serious  obstacles  in  the  path  of  religious  restoration. 
In  a  single  year  '  the  book  of  the  law '  caused  the  re- 
moval of  every  obstacle.  The  laws  it  contained  must, 
many  of  them,  have  been  familiar,  by  tradition,  long 
usage,  and  written  codes.  But  in  this  book,  laws,  old 
and  new  alike,  lived  in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  and  glowed 
with  the  vehemence  of  prophecy.  The  tone  in  which 
the  law  was  here  expounded  to  the  people  was  something 
new.  It  marked  the  close  of  one  era  ;  it  heralded  the  i/s  oppor- 
beginning  of  another.  It  rang  sharp  and  clear  in  the 
lull  that  so  graciously  intervened  before  the  tempest  of 
Babylonian  invasion.  The  enthusiasm  it  aroused  in  the 
young  king  communicated  itself  to  the  people.  The 
discovery  of  '  the  book  of  the  law '  procured  at  once 
the  abolition  of  the  high  places.  The  book  was  re- 
cognized as  a  divine  gift,  and  lifted,  though  but  for 
a  passing  moment,  the  conception  of  the  nation's  re- 
ligion above  the  routine  of  the'  priesthood's  traditional 
worship. 

In  the  authority  and  sanctity  assigned,  at  this  con- 
juncture, to  a  book,  we  recognize  the  beginnings  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon.  And  we  cannot  but  feel,  that  it  was 
no  mere  chance,  but  the  overruling  of  the  Divine 
Wisdom,  which  thus  made  provision  for  the  spiritual 
survival  of  His  chosen  people  on  the  eve  of  their  political 
annihilation. 

The  generation  of  Hilkiah  had  hardly  passed  2.\Ndiy ^  Hs historic 
when  the  deportation  of  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem  and  the  "^^'^'^^  '^^^'^^' 
destruction  of  the  Temple  seemed  to  menace  the  extinc- 
tion of  pure  worship.     But  Josiah's  reign  had  seen  the 
dawn  of  that  love  and   reverence   for   Scripture,   with 


62  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

which  the  true  Israelite,  whether  Jew  or  Christian,  was 
destined  ever  afterwards  to  be  identified.  The  coinci- 
dence is  instructive.  The  collapse  of  the  material 
power  of  the  house  of  Israel  contained  within  it  the_seed 
of  its  spiritual  revival  in  the  possession  of  the  indestruc- 
tible  Word  of  God. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CANON  (continued). 

The  Exile. 

The  degree  of  veneration  which  '  the  book  of  the  chap.  in. 
law'  received  from  the  people  at  large,  can  hardly  at  any  'Book  of  the 
time  have  been  very  considerable  before  the  exile,  ^^^ence'o^n'^n- 
certainly  was  not  of  a  lasting  character.  Josiah's  reforms  dividuais. 
were  effected,  so  to  speak,  from  above  downward.  They 
did  not  emanate  from  the  people,  but  from  the  king. 
Outside  the  court  and  a  few  sincerely  religious  minds 
among  the  prophets  and  the  priests,  there  were  probably 
not  many  who,  after  the  first  shock  of  surprise,  troubled 
themselves  about  the  ascendancy  temporarily  obtained 
by  '  the  book  of  the  law.'  The  half  century  of  idolatrous 
government  by  Manasseh  and  his  son  had  unfitted  the 
nation  for  the  moral  effort  of  acknowledging  the  claim 
and  submitting  to  the  restraint  of  any  new  spiritual 
authority.  The  verdict  of  the  historian  of  the  Books 
of  Kings  makes  it  sufificiently  evident,  that  Josiah's  sons 
and  successors  did  nothing  to  promote  the  spiritual  in- 
terests of  their  people.  Nor,  indeed,  could  we  expect 
from  their  short,  disturbed,  and  calamitous  reigns  any 
further  popular  recognition  of  the  sacred  authority  vested 
in  '  the  law.'     And  yet  its  influence  upon  those  whom  it 


Horn. 


64  THE  CANON  OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  III.  was  most  Calculated  to  impress  has  left  traces  clear  and 
unmistakable.  Perhaps  we  should  not  quite  be  justified 
in  saying  that  the  influence  of  this  book  is  alone  re- 
sponsible for  the  so-called  Deuteronomic  style,  wherever 
it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  For  the  possi- 
bility must  be  admitted,  that  the  style  was  but  charac- 
teristic of  a  phase  in  Hebrew  literature,  and  marked  the 
particular  colouring  peculiar  to  the  prophetical  writing 
of  the  century. 
Distinctive  But,  evcn  SO,  wc  shall  probably  be  right  to  connect 
\n  treat-  the  prevalence  of  Deuteronomic  thought  in  later  writings 
7/oZii^{ms-  w^^^  ^^  feelings  of  veneration  excited  by  'the  book  of  the 
law.'  The  appearance  of  the  peculiar  style  and  phrase- 
ology of  Deuteronomy  denotes  something  more  than 
the  accidental  resemblance  of  contemporary  literature.  It 
implies  that  the  Deuteronomic  treatment  of  the  nation's 
history,  for  some  reason,  commended  itself  in  an  especial 
way  to  later  writers,  and  that,  for  the  same  reason,  the 
stamp  of  its  religious  thought  was  transferred  to  other 
literature.  Clearly  the  standard  of  life  and  doctrine,  re- 
flected in  '  the  book  of  the  law,'  was  adopted  as  the  truest 
utterance  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah.  It  is  a  noteworthy 
phenomenon  in  the  history  of  Hebrew  literature.  Can 
we,  however,  doubt  as  to  the  reason  ?  It  was  because, 
tihough  even  on  a  small  scale,  the  influence  of  the  written 
Word,  as  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will  both  for 
the  people  and  for  the  individual,  had  for  the  first  time 
made  itself  felt. 

Of  the  influence,  exerted  upon  religious  thought  by 
this  first  instalment  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture, 
we  are  able  to  form  some  judgment  from  writings  which 
were  either  actually  composed,  or  compiled  and  edited, 
in   the   century  following  upon   the   discovery  of 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  6^ 

book  of  tke  law,'  and  were  afterwards  admitted  into  the  chap.  hi. 
Canon  of  Scripture. 

The  two  most  conspicuous  examples  are  supplied  by 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  and  the  Books  of  Kings. 

Jeremiah's  call  to  the  ministry  of  prophecy  took  place  injitunce 
five  years  before  the  discovery  of  '  the  book  of  the  law '  "miah  ^^^ 
(Jer.  i.  2).  He  was  one,  probably,  of  a  small  but  devoted 
number,  who  recognised  in  this  book  a  pledge  of  spiritual 
hope,  and  joined  himself  heartily  to  the  efforts  of  religious 
revival  on  the  basis  of  the  newly-discovered,  prophetic, 
and  popular  formulation  of  the  law. 

Jeremiah  is  an  author  who  places  himself  freely  under 
obligations  to  other  writers.  In  his  extant  prophecies 
he  frequently  makes  allusions  to  incidents  recorded  in 
the  Pentateuch,  without,  however,  directly  citing  from 
materials  incorporated  in  our  Pentateuch.  It  is  the 
more  noticeable,  therefore,  that  such  quotations  as  he 
undoubtedly  derives  from  the  Pentateuch  are  all  to  ht  Jer:s  guo/a- 
found  in  Deuteronomy,  e.g. : — iv.  4  from  Deut.  x.  16  neut/  '^ 
(xxx.  6);  v.  15,  17  from  Deut.  xxviii.  31,  49;  xi.  4 
from  Deut.  iv.  10  ;  xi.  8  from  Deut.  xxix.  14,  19. 
It  will  be  remarked,  that  he  does  not  introduce  these 
quotations  with  the  formula  of  citation  from  a  sacred 
book.  But  this  is  perhaps  not  surprising  in  the  early 
days  of  the  recognition  of  a  sacred  book.  The  time 
had  not  yet  come  to  rely  upon  the  authority  of  a 
quotation.     The  prophet  was  still  the  living  oracle. 

Jeremiah^s  testimony,  in  certain  other  respects,  is  full  Hisrecogni- 
of  importance.  He  refers  not  only  to  the  existence  oi  ^"a^en  law. 
'  the  law,'  but  to  the  danger  of  its  being  perverted  by  the 
recklessness  or  by  the  wilful  malice  of  the  scribes  (ch. 
vili.  8):  '  How  do  ye  say,  We  are  wise,  and  the  law  of  the 
Lord  is  with  us?  But  behold  the  false  pen  of  the 
F 


1. 


66  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  III.  sci'ibes  hath  wrought  falsely.'  Here  was  a  peril  which 
was  especially  likely  to  arise,  when  but  few  copies  of  '  the 
law '  existed,  and  when  the  authority  of  the  written  law 
was  not  fully  recognised.  In  another  passage,  the  prophet 
rebukes  the  unscrupulousness  of  the  priests,  to  whom 
was  entrusted  the  duty  of  instructing  the  people  from 
the  law  (ch.  ii.  8) :  '  The  priests  said  not,  Where  is 
the  Lord  ?  And  they  that  handle  the  law  knew  me  not' ; 
and,  possibly,  he  is  there  also  referring  to  the  sacred 
deposit  of  the  written  law.  But  the  abuses  which  he  con- 
demns, the  perversion  and  falsification  of  the  written  text, 
belong  to  a  time  which  as  yet  was  as  far  as  possible  a 
stranger  to  the  awe  that  was  eventually  to  gather  round 
the  text  of  Canonical  Scripture.  Zephaniah,  a  younger 
contemporary  of  Jeremiah,  possibly  calls  attention  to 
the  same  neglect  of  the  newly  established  written 
authority,  when  he  complains  of  the  priests,  '  they  have 
profaned  the  sanctuary,  they  have  done  violence  to  the 
law '  (iii.  4). 

His  Deiifer-  Jcrcmiah's  own  devotion  to  '  the  law  '  stands  in  marked 
'  contrast  to  the  indifference  and  faithlessness  of  the 
priests  he  denounces.  A  comparison  of  his  Hebrew 
style  with  that  of  Deuteronomy  has  justified  some 
scholars  in  the  assertion,  that  the  prophet  must  have 
elaborated  his  oratorical  prose  upon  an  imitation  of  that 
in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  Whether  this  was  actu- 
ally the  case  or  not,  a  comparative  study  of  the  style 
of  the  two  books  shows  how  the  prophet  must  have 
steeped  himself  in  '  the  book  of  the  law,'  whose  words 
and  phrases  he  so  frequently  repeats,  whose  teaching  he 
so  persistently  enforces. 

Turning  to  the  Books  of  Kings,  we  shall,  of  course, 
notice  the  use  of  the  formula  of  citation  in  the  passages 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  67 

to  which  attention  has  already  been  called  (e.  g.  i  Kings  Chap.  hi. 
ii.  3,  2  Kings  xiv.  6),  from  which,  as  well  as  from  the  Books  of 
whole   narrative  in   2  Kings  xxii,  xxiii.  we  gather  the  ^'"^^' 
compiler's  attitude  towards  *  the  book  of  the  law.'     In 
these  historical  books,  no  less  than  in  the  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah,  the  impress  of  the  Deuteronomic  character- 
istics is  everywhere  observable.     But,  while  its  influence 
may  most  easily  be  discovered   in  the  use  of  particular 
words  and  phrases,  it  is  reproduced  in  a  more  subtle  form 
by  the  whole  conception  of  Israelite  history  and  Israelite 
religion,  presented  in  the  narrative  of  the  two  kingdoms. 
The  Books  of  Kings  apply  the  Deuteronomic  standard 
of  judgment,  that  of  the  Covenant  relations  of  the  people 
with  Jehovah,  to  the  interpretation  of  history. 

In  other  books  of  the  exilic  period  we  may  notice  " 
the  same  influence  at  work.  Thus,  leaving  out  of  the 
question  the  historical  framework  of  the  Deuteronomic 
laws  which  was  possibly  composed  at  or  about  this  time, 
we  have  only  to  mention  the  distinctly  Deuteronomic 
portions  included  in  Joshua  and  Judges^,  and  to  point 
to  traces  of  the  same  influence  in  the  language  of  Isaiah  II, 
Ezekiel,  and  Zephaniah. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  influence  which   it  thus  clearly  Sacr^d 
exercised,  the  Deuteronomic  law  was  still  far  from  play-  Tessvafued 
ing  the  part,   which    Canonical    Scripture   occupied  in  ^^^f^^^^e. 
later  times.     For  this  we  may  see  two  reasons.     Firstly, 
the  living  voice  of  the  prophet  was  still  heard,  and  took 
precedence  in  men's  minds  of  any  written  oracle.     The 
sixth  cent.  B.C.  saw  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  II,  Zepha-     . 
niah,  Zechariah,  and  Haggai  still  labouring  in  the  midst 
of  their  countrymen.     The  pious  Jew  who  listened  to 

^  e.  g.  Jos.  i.  viii.  30-35,  x.  28-43,  xxii.  1-8,  xxiii ;  Jud.  ii.  11-23.  iii.  4-6, 
X.  6-18,  &c. 

F  % 


68  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAxMENT. 

Chap.  III.    them,  aiid  who  reverted  in  thought  to  the  history  of  the 
'  past,  could  hardly  do  otherwise  than  believe,  that,  so  long 

as  the  spirit  of  prophecy  remained,  in  it,  rather  than  in 
any  writing,  would  be  conveyed  the  message  of  the  Lord 
to  His  people.  By  comparison  with  the  force  of  living 
utterance,  the  authority  of  written  law  would  appear 
weak.  And  this  impression  would  be  increased,  when 
a  prophet,  like  Ezekiel,  could  formulate  a  new  ideal 
scheme  of  worshfp  (xl-xlviii),  differing  in  many  respects 
from  that  contained  in  the  written  tradition  of  the  law. 
Moreover,  in  numerous  details,  it  was  not  easy,  and 
loss  of  confidence  would  be  the  price  of  failure,  to 
reconcile  the  enactments  in  '  the  book  of  the  law '  with 
the  words  of  a  yet  older  tradition,  or  to  adapt  them 
to  the  changes  in  the  outward  circumstances  of  the 
people  consequent  on  the  Captivity  and  the  Return. 
'TheBookof  Secondly,  a  national  Scripture,  consisting  only  of  the 
hisi4fficient.  Dcuterouomic  law,  carried  with  it  its  own  evidence  of 
insufficiency.  The  recognition  of  such  a  Canon  could 
not  fail  to  be  followed  by  a  demand  for  its  expansion 
and  enlargement.  The  Deuteronomic  '  book  of  the  law ' 
presupposed  a  knowledge  of  the  older  laws ;  itpresup- 
posed  also  a  knowledge  of  the  early  history  of  the 
Israelite  race.  The  veneration  in  which  the  Deutero- 
nomic formulation  of  the  law  was  itself  held,  must  have* 
added  to  the  popular  regard  for  those  other  documents, 
without  a  knowledge  of  which  so  many  of  the  allusions 
in  the  Deuteronomic  Scripture  would  have  been  un- 
intelligible. Now  the  writings  on  which  Deuteronomy 
rests,  both  for  historical  facts  (e.g.  Deut.  i.  9-17,  cf.  Ex. 
xviii  ;  Deut.  ii.  26-32,  cf.  Num.  xx,  xxi)  and  for  laws 
(cf.  Ex.  xx-xxiii),  arethe  Jehovist  and  Elohist  narratives, 
which,  for  sometime  before  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  69 

cent.  B.  c.,  had   been    united    into   a    single    composite  chap.  hi. 

work.  Amplified 

In  a  century  of  great  literary  productiveness,  of  which  ^cett.t^.c. 
we  have  a  few  extant  examples  in  the  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah,  of  Ezekiel,  of  Isaiah  II,  of  Zephaniah,  of  Ze- 
chariah,  and  of  Haggai,  in  the  compilation  of  the  Books 
of  Kings,  not  to  mention  the  possible  composition,  in 
the  same  era,  of  Job,  Lamentations  and  certain  Psalms, 
it  was  almost  sure  to  happen,  that  the  heightened 
veneration  for  the  most  ancient  records  would  result  in 
some  endeavour  to  connect  them  with  ^  the  book  of  the 
law '  that  was  so  dependent  on  them.  We  conjecture, 
thereforcj  that  the  Deuteronomic  law  having  received 
its  definitely  historical  setting  (Deut.  i-iv,  xxxii-xxxiv),  * 

the  Book  of  Joshua  was  added  to  it  by  the  scribe,  or 
redactor,  who  so  freely  edited  the  Jehovist-Elohist  ver- 
sion of  the  Joshua  narrative  in  the  spirit  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic Scripture  ;  and  that  then,  or  about  the  same 
time,  a  redaction  of  the  whole  Jehovist-Elohist  compila- 
tion was  prefixed  to  the  Deuteronomic  laws.  Such  a 
step  may  at  first  have  been  taken  for  private  edification, 
or,  conceivably,  for  convenience  in  public  reading.  In 
any  case,  it  was  a  natural  step.  We  need  not  go  far  to 
find  the  motives  for  it.  Imagine  the  reverence  with  Israelite 
which  the  pious  Jew,  in  his  Babylonian  exile,  would  the  Jewish 
regard  the  archives  that  recorded  the  beginnings  of  his  ^^^^^' 
nation  and  the  foundation  of  his  faith.  He  saw  his 
people  threatened  with  extinction  in  the  land  of  their 
captivity  ;  the  ancient  records  told  him  that  the  founder 
of  his  race  was  summoned  alone  by  the  voice  of  God 
from  this  very  land  of  the  Chaldees,  and  preferred 
before  all  the  princes  of  Babylonia.  He  saw  the  Jews 
lying  helpless  in  the  grasp  of  the  mightiest  empire  in 


70  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  III.  Western  Asia  ;  the  history  described  to  him  a  deliver- 
ance, which  was  the  very  birthday  of  Israels  nationality, 
when  they  emerged  from  a  condition  of  servitude  under 
Pharaoh,  more  intolerable  than  ever  Nebuchadnezzar 
had  thought  of  imposing. 

He  saw  in  Babylon  the  most  elaborate  worship  of 
heathen  deities,  Bel,  Nebo,  Merodach  and  a  host 
of  others,  a  worship  performed  with  infinitely  greater 
splendour  than  was  ever  probably  witnessed  at  the 
Temple  of  Jerusalem,  which  now  lay  in  ruins,  and 
yet  attended  with  depths  of  moral  degradation  that 
made  Babylonian  shamelessness  a  proverb.  He  read 
in  the  ancient  records  of  his  race,  how  Jehovah  had 
manifested  Himself  to  the  Patriarchs,  to  Moses,  and 
to  the  prophets,  in  purity  and  love  as  well  as  in  power ; 
and  he  realised  something  of  that  pure  and  simple 
spiritual  revelation  of  Jehovah,  which,  through  the 
teaching  of  the  Prophets,  had  ever  been  lifting  Israel 
up  to  higher  and  nobler  conceptions  of  man  and  his 
Maker.  These  were  thoughts  which  shed  a  new  light 
upon  the  Divine  purpose  served  by  the  nation's  earliest 
writings  ;  they  revealed  the  possibility  that  the  pen  of 
the  scribe  would  transmit  the  expression  of  Jehovah's  Will 
in  a  more  enduring  form  than  even  a  prophet's  voice. 
Conjectured      The  cxact  manner  in  which  the  Deuteronomic  laws 

acceptance  of  ,  11         ti  't^ii' 

joint  narra-  wcrc  thus  rcviscd,  and  the  Jehovist-Klohist  writmgs  con- 
'^^*  joined  with  them,  will  never  be  known.  It  was,  as  we 
have  said,  an  age  of  literary  activity.  Annals  were  being 
collected,  histories  compiled,  prophecies  transcribed  and 
edited,  everything,  in  short,  was  being  done  to  preserve 
the  treasures  of  Hebrew  literature  and  the  memorials  of 
Hebrew  religion,  which  had  been  threatened  with  ex- 
tinction in  the  national  overthrow. 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  7 1 

The  addition  of  the  Jehovist-Elohist  writings  to  the  chap.  hi. 
Deuteronomic  was  but  one  instance  of  the  collecting 
and  compiling  process  that  was  going  on.  But  the  use 
of  this  larger  literary  work  would  not  have  commended 
itself  all  at  once  for  general  acceptance.  For  all  we 
know,  it  may  have  had  to  compete  with  other  similar 
compilations  ;  and  have  survived  them  on  account  of  its 
intrinsic  superiority^. 

Conceivably  the  institution  of  the  Synagogue,  or  the 
germ  of  that  institution,  promoted  the  process  of  its 
reception  into  special  favour.  Exiles  in  a  foreign  land 
would  there  have  gathered  not  only  to  hear  the  exhorta- 
tions of  the  prophet,  but  to  listen  as  some  priest  or  Levite 
read  aloud  the  traditions  of  the  past,  that  recorded  the 
former  mercies  of  Jehovah  and  His  everlasting  purpose 
toward  His  chosen  people. 

But  yet  another  process  of  compilation  must  have  been  CompiiaUon 
going  on,  of  which  we  only  know  that  a  commencement  Lawsdur- 
was  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  exilic  period.    This  was  ^""^ 
the   gathering    together    of  the    numerous    groups    of 
Priestly  Laws.    That  the  Priestly  Laws  existed  in  any 
one  complete  compilation  before  the  time  of  the  exile, 
so  that  they  could  be  referred  to,  for  literary  purposes, 
as  a  code  well  known  to  the  people  at  large,  is  hardly 
any  longer  possible  to  be  maintained  ;  but  that  the  cus- 
toms and   institutions,  with  which  these  laws  are  con- 
cerned, had  (most  of  themJ  existed   for  centuries^,  and 
were    provided   for  by   appropriate  regulations,   is  not 
denied. 

The  disasters  of  the  exile  doubtless  stimulated  devout 
priests   to  collect    and    group  together  laws  and    pre- 

^  The  complete  compilation  thus  comprised  the  Hexateuch  (i.e.  Genesis 
to  Joshua)  :  see  p.  97. 


the  Priesiiy 
Larvs. 


72  THE   CANON    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

cedents,  with  which  hitherto  the  priestly  famihes  had 
alone  been  thoroughly  conversant.  For,  after  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple,  the  tradition  both  of  the 
Temple  ritual  and  of  religious  ceremonial  generally 
was  in  peril  of  being  forgotten.  Desuetude  was  likely 
to  be  more  fatal  in  its  influence  than  wilful  neglect. 
E^ekieiand  It  is  in  thc  Writings  of  Ezekiel  that  we  first  find  un- 
mistakable signs  of  acquaintance  with  a  collection  of 
Priestly  Laws  that  we  can  certainly  identify.  His  lan- 
guage shows  so  close  a  resemblance  to  the  Law  of  Holi- 
ness, that  some  scholars  have  even  maintained  the  prophet 
was  the  author  of  Lev.  xvii-xxvi.  That  view  is  now 
generally  rejected,  but  the  resemblance  is  best  explained 
on  the  supposition  that  the  collection  of '  the  Laws  of  Holi- 
ness '  had  not  long  been  formed  when  Ezekiel  wrote.  The 
individual  laws  themselves  were,  of  course,  most  of  them 
very  much  older  than  his  time  ;  but  the  prophet  was  not 
only,  as  a  priest  (Ezek.  i.  3),  accurately  acquainted  with 
their  contents,  he  was  also  deeply  penetrated  with  their 
spirit,  he  assimilated  their  distinctive  phraseology,  he 
adopted  their  special  formulas.  Jeremiah  too  was  a 
priest  (Jer.  i.  i) ;  but  he  was  unaffected  by  '  the  Law  of 
Holiness.'  The  inference  is  obvious.  In  the  land  of  the 
captivity  the  priests  grouped  together  and  formulated 
in  writing  the  priestly  regulations,  to  save  them  from 
being  lost.  Hence  it  is  Ezekiel,  who  was  one  of  the 
exiles  '  in  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,' — and  not  Jeremiah 
who  remained  in  Palestine, — that  testifies  to  their  exist- 
ence. But  though  he  was  acquainted  with  '  the  Law  of 
Holiness'  as  a  separate  collection,  it  is  unlikely  that  the 
other  Priestly  Laws,  in  their  present  form,  were,  in 
Ezekiel's  time,  finally  codified.  It  is  true  his  knowledge 
of  their  technical  terms  is  undeniable  ;  but  this  is  only 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   CANON.  73 

what  we  should  expect  from  a  priest  well  versed  in  the  chap.  iir. 
■phraseology  which  had  become  traditional  among  the 
embers  of  the  priestly  caste  ^.  As  compared  with 
;he  mass  of  the  Priestly  Laws  in  the  Pentateuch,  the 
riestly  Laws  sketched  by  Ezekiel  (cf.  xliii.  13-xlvi.  24) 
indicate  a  slightly  earlier  stage  of  ritual  develop- 
ent.  The  arguments  of  critics,  who,  while  acknow- 
ledging the  antiquity  of  the  institutions  themselves, 
have  pointe(?  out  signs  of  their  being  represented  in 
a  somewhat  more  ornate  and  developed  form  in  the 
Priestly  Laws  of  the  Pentateuch  than  in  Ezekiel,  cannot 
well  be  /Resisted  ^, 

If  so,  we  may  regard  the  *  Law  of  Holiness '  in  its 
present  literary  form  as  a  compilation  of  ancient  cere- 
lionial  laws  in  conformity  with  the  tradition  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  exile,  and  as  illustrating  the  process  by  which 
the  Priestly  Laws  generally  were  afterwards  collected. 
The  Book  of  Ezekiel  shows  with  what  freedom  a  prophet 
could  handle  the  priestly  tradition.  It  shows  that  he 
could  not  have  regarded  it  as  a  fixed  code  admitting 
of  no  substantial  alteration.  Changes  so  complete 
as  those  which  he  contemplates  in  his  Vision  would 
bring  with  them  changes  in  worship,  and  he  has  no 
compunction  in  propounding  them. 

The  work  of  compiling  the  Priestly  Laws  was  pro-  Prtesf/y 
bably  carried   on  at  Babylon,  which,  as  we  know,  was^^Xt/%/^- 
the   scene   of  a  vigorous    literary   activity   among   the  ^^'•y'^^^- 
Jews.      At    a    time    and    place    which    witnessed    the 
redaction    of   Judges,   of   Samuel,    and   of    Kings,    an 
analogous  process  applied  to  the  Priestly  Laws  and  to 
the  version  of  the  early  narratives,  which  embodied  the 

^  Cf.  Smend's  Ezekiel,  Introd.  p.  xxvii, 

^  See  Driver,  I?tlrod.  Lit.  0.  T.  pp.  132,  133. 


74  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

teaching  and  tradition  of  the  priests,  is  only  what  we 
should  expect.  That  this  work  had  been  completed,  or 
that,  if  completed,  the  Priestly  Code  had  as  yet  been 
recognized  as  authoritative  Scripture  by  the  side  of  the 
Deuteronomic '  book  of  the  law  '  when  the  Jews  returned 
from  exile,  may  well  be  doubted.  On  the  face  of  it, 
we  should  expect  that  some  interval  would  elapse  be- 
tween the  process  of  compiling  the  laws  of  the  priestly 
caste  and  the  expression  of  a  desire  to  unite  them  with 
writings  which  had  been,  perhaps,  for  a  generation  or 
more,  the  accepted  means  of  popular  religious  instruc- 
tion. It  is,  therefore,  noteworthy  that  Zechariah  in 
his  prophecy  makes  no  appeal  to  it ;  and  that  Haggai 
(ii.  11-12),  when  speaking  of  the  priestly  authority  to 
decide  on  matters  of  cleanliness,  represents  the  priests 
delivering  their  sentence  upon  their  own  authority, 
not  prefacing  it,  as  the  scribes  of  a  later  day  would 
have  done,  by  the  formula,  '  It  is  written.'  The  priests' 
authority  was  based,  no  doubt,  on  their  Priestly  law, 
written  or  oral  ;  but  the  prophet's  words  suggest  that 
the  requirements  of  the  Priestly  Law  were  not  known 
to  the  nation  generally,  and  existed  in  no  other  form 
but  as  a  private  code  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  them- 
selves ^. 

^  The  objection  that  Ezra  iii.  2  seems  to  indicate  acquaintance  with  the 
codified  priestly  law  is  only  an  apparent  difficulty,  and  is  not  really  ad  rem. 
Critical  analysis  has  clearly  shown  that  the  chapter  in  question  does  not 
come  from  the  pen  of  Ezra,  but  from  the  chronicler,  who,  writing  in  the 
third  century  B.C.,  everywhere  assumes  that  the  completed  priestly  code 
underlay  the  whole  Israelite  constitution  from  the  earliest  days  of  the 
monarchy.  The  passage  cannot  therefore  be  alleged  as  evidence  dating 
from  the  period  of  the  return,  of  which  the  narrative  tells.  It  is  only  an 
instance  of  the  chronicler's  belief  that  the  priestly  worship  of  the  Temple, 
with  which  he  was  himself  acquainted,  had  never  varied — a  position  which 
is  now  known  to  be  untenable. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST   CANON. 
The  Law. 

The  Jews  who  returned  from  the  exile  [^'>fi  B.C.)    chap. iv, 
formed  at  Jerusalem  a  religious  rather  than  a  political  536  b.c. 
community.     To  them  the  first  object  to  be  achieved  ^'^^^Jj"'''' 
was  to  restore  the  Temple  worship  and  to  rebuild  the  ^^ii^- 
House  of  God.     For  the  achievement  of  that  object,  and 
for  that   only,  had    Cyrus   granted  them   his   merciful 
decree.     (Ezr.    i.    1-4.)     A  small  number   only   of  the 
children  of  Israel  returned  to  their  own  land.     A  century! 
later  the  nation  had  become  a   sect,  their  constitution? 
9  a  Church,  their  '  law '  a  Bible. 

During  all  the  first  years  of  privation  and  hardship 
endured  by  this  community,  the  only  Scripture,  recog- 
nized as  such  by  the  people,  seems  to  have  been  the 
Deuteronomic  law.  It  was  on  the  strength  of  this  law 
that  Ezra  took  action  against  marriage  with  the  "strange 
women"  (Ezra  ix.  i,  2,  x.  3)^;  and  it  is  the  teaching  and 
phraseology  of  Deuteronomy  which  colour  the  language 
of  Ezra's  confession  in  Ezra  ix.  6-15,  and  of  Nehemiah's 
prayer  in  Neh.  i.  5-1 1.  Undoubtedly  an  oral  tradition  of 
priestly  and  ceremonial  law  was  kept  up  by  the  priests 

^  Cf.  Neh.  xiii.  1-3  with  Deut.  xiv.  2,  xxiii.  3-6. 


1.VI8.     Ihe 
people 
ignorant  oj 
complete  code 


76  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

who  ministered  at  the  restored  Temple.  But  either  this 
had  no  close  resemblance  to  the  completed  priestly  code 
familiar  to  us  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  or,  if  it  had,  it  was 
most  negligently  and  carelessly  administered  by  the 
priests.     There  is  no  escape  from  the  alternative.     At 

E=ra\\\\.  least,  this  would  appear  from  Ezra  viii.  13-1^,  where 
we  learn,  that  until  the  people  received  instruction 
from  Ezra  they  had    been    ignorant,  or  had  been  kept 

of  law.  \^  ignorance,  of  the  right  way  to  celebrate  the  great 
Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Such  a  degree  of  ignorance 
on  the  part,  not  of  the  common  people  only,  but  of 
the  heads  of  the  great  houses,  and  even  of  the  priests 
and  the  Levites,  would  be  to  us  incomprehensible,  if  we 
could  suppose  that  the  completed  code  of  Priestly  Laws 
had  all  along  formed  part  of  the  sacred  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture. On  the  supposition,  however,  that  the  Priestly 
Laws  had  hitherto  been  mainly  orally  transmitted,  and 
then  perhaps  only  fragmentarily  and  too  often  negligently, 
the  contrast  between  the  defect  of  custom  and  the  re- 
quirement of  the  letter  becomes  in  some  degree  intel- 
ligible. The  Deuteronomic  law  (Deut.  xvi.  13-17)  had 
said  nothing  of  the  celebration  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
by  dwelling  in  booths.  The  construction  of  booths  is 
required,  in  the  precepts  of  the  Priestly  Law,  as  a  dis- 
tinctive symbolic  feature  of  the  feast.  Until  Ezra  made 
it  known,  the  requirement  had  not  been  observed.  Was 
it  that  the  custom  had  been  forgotten  by  the  people? 
If  so,  the  Priests  had  either  neglected  to  teach  the 
people  the  Law,  or  they  had  failed  to  preserve  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Law  faithfully.  The  conclusion  is  almost 
certain,  with  this  striking  example  before  our  eyes,  that 
the  full  Priestly  Law  could  not  have  been,  at  least 
popularly,  known  in  Jerusalem  before  the  year  444  B.  C. 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST   CANON.  77 

It  will  be  remembered  that  we  have  ah'eady  regarded  chap.  iv. 
it  as  probable  that  the  compilation  of  the  Priestly  Laws 
had  gradually  taken  place  among  the  Jews  in  Babylon, 
and  that  with  them  there  had  also  been  combined  the 
great  Jehovist  and  Elohist  narrative  and  the  Deutero- 
nomic  writings.  The  possession  of  the  combined  work 
would  acquaint  those  who  studied  it  with  a  complete 
scheme  of  Israelite  worship  and  ceremonial  based  upon 
the  tradition  derived  from  earliest  times.  Whether  or  no  mposses^ 
such  a  tradition  occasionally  contradicted  itself  on  certain  ^JourVoT 
details,  was  immaterial,  so  long  as  whatsoever  was  pro-  -^^^^''• 
nounced  to  be  ancient,  and  whatsoever  of  sacred  custom, 
was  faithfully  committed  to  writing.  It  is  clear  that 
such  a  work  would  place  any  careful  student,  who  took 
the  trouble  to  master  its  contents,  upon  a  footing  of 
equality  with,  and  even  of  superiority  to,  priests  who 
only  relied  upon  the  memory  of  individual  families, 
upon  local  tradition,  and  upon  personal  usage.  He 
would  be  possessed,  in  a  compact  form,  of  all  that  a 
single  priestly  memory  could  retain,  and,  in  addition,  of 
all  that  survived  of  cognate  interest,  to  be  derived  from 
other  sources.  The  minute  study  of  the  priestly  as 
well  as  of  the  other  national  laws  would  thus  enable  any 
devout  Jew,  ardent  for  religious  reform,  to  occupy  an  un- 
assailable position  both  in  rallying  the  people  to  a  stan- 
dard of  purer  worship,  and  in  combating  any  tendency  to 
negligence  or  unfaithfulness  arising  from  the  ignorance 
or  worldliness  of  the  priesthood.  But,  before  arraigning 
the  priesthood,  the  reformer  would  have  to  assure  him- 
self of  the  sympathy  of  the  people.  Until  he  could  gain 
a  hearing,  it  would  be  labour  lost  to  invoke  the  national 
enthusiasm  for  the  stricter  observance  of  the  ancient 
laws. 


78  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IV.  Ezra  the  scribe,  as  we  are  told,  '  went  up  from  Babylon, 
Esra.  and  he  was  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses  '  (Ezra  vii. 
6).  He  was  '  the  scribe  of  the  words  of  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord,  and  of  his  statutes  to  Israel '  (Ezra 
vii.  ii).  The  law  of  his  God  was  in  his  hand  (Ezra 
vii.  14). 

On  the  strength  of  the  words  just  quoted,  Hebrew 
legend  of  later  time  told  how  Ezra  was  inspired  to 
dictate  from  memory  all  the  twenty-four  books  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture,  that  had  been  destroyed  by 
the  Chaldeans  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (4  Esdras 
xiv.  39-48).  On  the  strength  of  the  same  words,  it  has 
been  suggested  in  modern  times,  that  Ezra  himself  was 
the  author  of  the  Priestly  Laws,  which,  with  the  help  of 
Nehemiah,  he  succeeded  in  imposing  upon  the  Jews  of 
Jerusalem.  For  the  Jewish  legend  there  is,  as  we  shall 
see,  no  foundation  in  historical  fact  ^.  There  is  scarcely 
more  solid  foundation  for  the  other  wild  specula- 
Esranot  tion.  The  extant  portions  of  Ezra's  own  memoirs 
tfihe''^^''  (Ezra  viii-x)  show  no  resemblance  whatever  to  the 
^lIwJ^  characteristic  style  of  the  Priestly  Laws.  The  latter,  as 
we  have  already  pointed  out,  consist  of  various  groups 
of  regulations,  which,  dealing,  as  a  rule,  with  different 
subjects,  every  now  and  then  reintroduce  topics  that 
have  already  been  handled  ;  and,  in  such  cases^  the 
obvious  variations,  not  to  say  contradictions,  between 
one  passage  and  another,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  any 
theory  of  unity  of  date  or  unity  of  authorship  (e.  g.  Num. 
iv.  3,  &c.  with  Num.  viii.  23-26;  Lev.  iv.  13-21  with 
Num.  XV.  22-26).  It  has,  indeed,  been  objected  that  the 
sameness  of  the  style  that  runs  through  the  Priestly  Laws, 
coupled  with  the  occurrence  of  late  forms  of  Hebrew, 

^  See  Excursus  A. 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST  CANON.  79 

night  be  regarded  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  view  chap.  iv. 
*that  a  single  writer,  if  not  Ezra  himself,  at  least  one 
who  was  of  Ezra's  period,  should  be  credited  with  their 
composition.  But  the  general  sameness  of  style  is  a 
characteristic  that  arises  not  so  much  from  unity  of 
authorship  as  from  the  continuous  use  of  technical  lan- 
guage relating  to  a  special  class  of  subjects.  As  to  the 
occurrence  of  late  Hebrew  forms,  their  presence  must  be 
admitted,  though  not  in  the  degree  claimed  for  them 
(e.g.  by  Giesebrecht,  Z.  A.  T.  W.,  1881,  177-276). 
They  are  to  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  the  date  at 
which  the  work  of  compilation  was  performed  ;  they  are 
fatal  to  the  maintenance  of  the  antiquity,  not  of  the  laws, 
but  of  their  medium,  the  vocabulary,  by  which  they  have 
been  transmitted  to  us. 

It  appears  to  me  quite  useless  to  attempt  to  ascribe  to 
any  one  man  this  work  of  compilation  and  redaction. 
Such  a  process  would  have  been  long  and  gradual.  It 
had  probably  been  going  on  continuously  ever  since  the 
beginning  of  the  exile.  Whether,  therefore,  Ezra,  150 
years  later,  had  any  direct  share  in  the  work,  is  a 
question  upon  which  it  would  be  vain  to  speculate. 
He  was  a  scribe ;  and,  so  far,  it  is  just  possible  he  may 
have  been  directly  connected  with  the  last  phases  of  the 
process.  So  much,  or  rather  so  little,  can  be  granted  of 
the  alleged  connexion  of  Ezra  with  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  of  Scripture. 

With  the  history  of  its  acceptance,  however,  his  direct  Possibfy 
connexion  is  proved  by  unequivocal  testimony.      ThQ  muigator  in 
completed    compilation,   which  had    been  executed    by -/^''^'-^^  ^'«- 
the  scribes  of  Babylon,  had  not  found  its  way  to  Jeru- 
salem before  the  arrival  of  Ezra  (457  B.  c).     The  possi- 
bility suggests  itself,  that  Ezra's  mission  to  Jerusalem 


8o  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap^iv.  was  undertaken  for  the  purpose  of  promulgating  the 
completed  Book  of  the  Law,  and,  at  the  same  time  of 
establishing  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  once  for  all,  upon  a 
footing  of  publicity  and  of  immutability  from  which  it 
could  not  be  dislodged  by  any  unscrupulousness,  treach- 
ery, or  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  priesthood.  From  the 
Memoirs  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  it  is  evident  that  an 
influential  section  of  the  priests  was  not  to  be  trusted. 

We  are  told  that  Ezra  started  upon  his  journey  to 
Jerusalem  having  as  his  object  in  life,  '  To  seek  the  law 
of  the  Lord  and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel  statutes 
and  judgments  '  (Ezra  vii.  lo).  For  upwards  of  thirteen 
years  he  apparently  made  no  attempt  to  publish  to  the 
people  the  Book  of  the  Law.  No  sooner,  however,  did 
Nehemiah  arrive,  as  governor,  than  Ezra  took  steps  to 
make  it  known.  We  are  left  to  conjecture  the  motive 
for  his  delay.  Was  it  due  to  the  opposition  that  his 
first  measure  of  reform  encountered  (Ezra  ix,  x.)  ?  or  was 
he  content  quietly  to  devote  himself  to  the  task  of 
completely  mastering  the  details  of  the  Law,  before 
venturing  to  promulgate  it,  resolved  deliberately  to  wait, 
until  the  opportunity  of  popular  enthusiasm,  joined 
with  the  certainty  of  official  support,  should  absolutely 
assure  him  of  success. 
Neh.  viii-x.  The  accouut  of  the  occasion,  on  which  he  made  known 
the  Law.  to  the  pcoplc  the  contents  of  the  completed  '  Law,'  is 
described  in  a  document  written  by  one  who  was  almost, 
if  he  was  not  actually,  a  contemporary  of  the  event. 
The  Chronicler  has  inserted  the  description  in  the  middle 
of  the  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  viii-x).  Into  the 
various  questions,  relating  to  that  scene  and  its  narrative, 
this  is  not  the  place  to  enter  with  any  minuteness.  So 
much,  however,  is  quite  clear  :  (i)  that  the  Book  of  the 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST  CANON.  8l 

Law,  introduced  by  Ezra,  and  publicly  read  by  him  and  chap.  iv. 
the  Levites  before  the  Temple  and  in  the  presence  of  the  ~ 
assembled  people,  was  to  the  mass  of  his  countrymen  a 
new  book ;  (2)  that  the  fulfilment  of  its  requirements 
apparently  caused  alterations  in  usage,  which — and  it  can 
hardly  be  an  accidental  coincidence — correspond  with 
variations  that,  in  a  comparison  between  the  Deuterono- 
mic  and  the  Priestly  Laws,  distinguish  the  latter  and, 
we  believe,  more  recently  formulated  code  (e.  g.  observ- 
ance of  Tabernacles,  Deut.  xvi.  13-17,  Num.  xxix.  12- 
38  ;  payment  of  tithe,  Deut,  xiv.  22-29,  Num.  xviii.  21- 
32)  -^ ;  (3)  that,  in  the  promulgation  of  this  book,  the 
Levites  were  more  conspicuously  associated  with  Ezra 
than  the  priests  ;  (4)  that,  from  henceforward,  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Priestly  Laws  are  unquestionably  com- 
plied with  in  the  events  recorded  by  the  historian  and  by 
Nehemiah,  and  are  presupposed  in  all  Jewish  literature 
later  than  the  time  of  Ezra. 

The  following  brief  explanation,  it  is  hoped,  will  suffice 
to  make  the  circumstances  clear.  Assured  of  the  favour 
and  active  support  of  Nehemiah,  Ezra  published  to  the 
people  the  law  which  was  '  in  his  hand.'  It  consisted,  as 
we  suppose,  of  the  final  expansion  of  the  people's  Book 
of  the  Law  ;  with  Deuteronomist  law  and  Jehovist- 
Elohist  narrative  had  now  been  combined  the  Priestly 
Narrative  and  the  Priestly  Laws.  The  publication  of  the 
work  heralded  a  radical  change  in  the  religious  life  of 
the  people.  The  People's  Book  was  no  longer  to  be 
confined  to  the  prophetic  re-formulation  of  laws,  which 
had  once  so  deeply  aroused  Jewish  thought  and  influenced 
Jewish  literature.     The  priesthood  was  no  longer  alone  to 

^  Cf.  Neh.  viii.  14-17 ;  x.  37,  38. 
G 


82  THE   CANON   OF    THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap  IV  possess  the  key  of  knowledge  as  to  the  clean  and  the  un- 
clean,  the  true  worship  and  the  false  (cf  Ezek.  xliv.  23,  24). 
Their  hereditary  monopoly  was  to  be  done  away.  The 
instruction  of  the  people  was  to  pass  from  the  priest  to 
the  scribe.  Not  what  *  the  law '  was,  but  what  its  mean- 
ing was,  was  henceforth  to  call  for  authoritative  ex- 
planation. The  Law  itself  was  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  people. 
A  Crisis.  The  conjuncture  was  a  critical  one  for  the  history  of 
Judaism.  There  was  a  sharp  division  between  the  High 
Priest's  party  and  the  supporters  of  Ezra.  The  records 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  leave  us  in  no  practical  doubt 
on  the  point.  The  priests  were  foremost  in  supporting 
a  policy  of  free  intercourse  with  the  heathen,  of  frater- 
nizing, for  the  sake  of  material  advantages,  with  the 
leaders  of  the  Samaritans  (cf  Ezra  ix.  t,  2,  x.  18-22, 
Neh.  vi.  10-14,  xiii-  4-I4j  28).  The  opposition  of  Ezra 
and  the  energetic  action  of  Nehemiah  averted  the  evil 
effects  of  this  policy.  But  it  is  probable  that,  if  the 
patriotic  enthusiasm  of  the  people  had  not  been  awakened 
by  Nehemiah's  successful  restoration  of  the  walls,  Ezra 
and  his  colleagues  would  not  have  been  strong  enough, 
in  the  face  of  the  priests,  to  establish  upon  a  firm  footing 
the  public  recognition  of  a  larger  Canon  of  Scripture. 
The  far-reaching  effect  of  their  action  may  not  then 
have  been  so  obvious  as  the  immediate  advantage  to  be 
obtained.  The  immediate  advantage  was,  that  a  know- 
ledge of  the  Priestly  Law  was  placed  within  the  reach  of 
every  Jew,  and  that  a  fatal  barrier  was  thus  raised  against 
any  attempt  at  fusion  with  the  stranger  and  the  Samari- 
tan. The  far-reaching  effect  was  that  a  standard  of 
holy  and  unholy,  right  and  wrong,  clean  and  unclean, 
was  delivered  to  the  Jews  as  a  people,  so  that  all  Jews, 


THE   COMPLETION    OF   THE   FIKST   CANON.  83 

whether  of  the  Dispersion  or  in  Judea,  whether  in  Babylon  chap,  iv. 
or  in  Alexandria  or  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  could 
equally  know  the  will  of  the  Lord,  and  equally  interpret 
the  difficulties  of  moral  and  social  life  by  appeal  to  the 
'  Torah/  to  the  verdict,  not  given  by  the  mouth  of  the 
priest  or  the  prophet,  but  obtained  by  search  into  the 
letter  of  '  the  Law.' 

In  effecting  this  chanp:e,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  gdcv^Priestiy 

^  o  '  <^  opposition. 

its  final  shape  to  the  religious  legalism  of  then'  people. 
As  to  the  priests,  while  it  is  probable  that  some,  for 
popularity's  sake,  refused,  and  others  who  favoured  the 
cause  of  Ezra  did  not  wish,  to  stand  aside  on  the 
occasion  of  the  popular  acknowledgment  of  the  Covenant, 
which  was  ratified  on  the  basis  of  the  publication  of  this 
*law'  (Neh.  ix.  38,  x.  a-8),  their  attitude  as  a  body  can- 
not be  regarded  as  having  been  warmly  sympathetic. 
The  absence  of  Eliashib's  name  among  '  those  that 
sealed '  (Neh.  x.  12)  has  naturally,  but  perhaps  unneces- 
sarily, excited  attention ;  it  may  be  that  his  name  is 
included  in  that  of  Seraiah,  the  name  of  his  '  father's 
house ' :  but,  even  so,  the  evident  hostility  which  Nehe- 
miah experienced  at  the  hands  of  the  High  Priest's 
family  (Neh.  xiii),  coupled  with  the  greater  prominence 
I  of  the  Levites  in  viii.  4,  7,  9,  ix.  4,  38,  makes  it  probable, 
that  the  policy  of  Ezra  and  his  colleagues  was  far  from 
having  the  support  of  the  aristocratic  and  priestly  caste. 
But,  in  spite  of  all  obstacles,  their  policy  triumphed.  It 
was  never  reversed.  Judaism  took  its  rise  from  their 
policy,  that  of  national  submissionto  the  yoke  of '  the 
Law.' 

That '  the  Law,'  thus  acknowledged  by  the  people  as  Esra^s  Book 
sacred  and  accepted  as  binding,  was    substantially  the  ^^^   ^  '^^' 
same  as  our  Pentateuch,  is  generally  admitted.     With  ^^«^'^^^«^^- 
G  1 


84  THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IV.  the  exception  of  a  few  possible  later  insertions,  and  of 

certain  minor  alterations,  due  to  an  occasional  revision 

of  the  text,  '  the  Torah '  has  probably  descended    to  us 

very  little  changed. 

Its  position.       Naturally  the  full   sie^nificance  and  value  of  such  a 

at  first,  un-  -^  ^ 

defined.  '  Cauon  '  of  Scripturc  would  not  at  first  be  understood. 
Its  influence  would  only  be  very  gradually  obtained. 
None  could  have  foreseen  its  future  absolute  sway.  Long 
habit  had  accustomed  the  priesthood  to  adapt  the  details 
of  their  regulations  so  as  to  meet  the  changing  cir- 
cumstances of  their  day.  It  was  not  likely  that  this 
elasticity  of  administration,  with  all  the  opportunities 
which  it  permitted  of  relieving  burdens  and  advancing 
interests,  would  all  at  once  be  surrendered.  For  some 
time  at  least  after  the  authority  of '  the  Law '  had  been 
accepted,  divergencies  in  detail  would  be  openly  per- 
mitted or  tacitly  practised,  without  any  thought  of  dis- 
honouring the  sacred  Book,  so  long  as  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  the  legislation  were  safeguarded.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  such  variations  in  practice  sometimes  led 
to  interpolations  being  made  in  the  Priestly  Laws,  and 
that  certain  difficulties  presented  by  different  accounts  of 
(a)  the  burnt-offering,  (b)  the  Temple-tribute,  [c]  the  tithe, 
{d)  the  age  of  Levitical  service,  as  well  as  by  the  text 
of  Exodus  (xxxv-xl),  are  only  intelligible  on  the  sup- 
position, that  a  long  time  elapsed  before  the  sanctity  of 
Scripture  effected  uniformity  of  practice,  or  protected 
the  purity  of  the  text  of  Scripture. 

Possible  fa)  The  law  of  burnt-offering  in  Lev.  vi.  8-13,  which  in 

/ater  inser-  ,  ,      . 

tions.  language  and  style  is  apparently  the  most  ancient  extant, 

^^j^^^^^'^^'^Moes  not  contain  any  enactment  for  an   evening  burnt- 
offering.       offering.     In  the  history  of  the  Monarchy  we  have  men- 
tion of  an   evening  meal-offering  (cf.  2  Kings  xvi.   1$)^ 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST   CANON.  85 

but  not  of  an  evening  burnt-offering.  Now  in  the  chap.  iv. 
apparenitly  later  Priestly  law  of  Ex.  xxix.  38-42,  Num. 
xxviii.  1-8,  we  find  both  a  morning  and  an  evening 
burnt-offering  commanded  ;  and  reference  to  a  double 
daily  burnt-offering  distinctly  occurs  in  Neh.  x.  ^^  and 
Chronicles  (e.  g.  2  Chron.  xxxi.  3).  The  view,  that  the 
laws  of  Ex.  xxix.  38-42,  Num.  xxviii.  1-8  were  inserted 
after  that  codification  of  the  Priestly  Laws,  to  which  Lev. 
vi.  8-13  belongs,  offers  a  solution  which  should  not  be 
hastily  set  aside.  The  same  variation  is  patent,  both  in 
the  laws  and  in  the  narratives.  Either  then  the  men- 
tion of '  the  continual  burnt-offering'  in  Neh.  x.  33  refers 
to  a  new  practice,  which  was  afterwards  expressed  in 
the  law  of  Ex.  xxix,  Num.  xxviii.  by  a  later  insertion, 
or  the  law  in  Lev.  vi,  supported  by  2  Kings  xvi,  con- 
tains but  a  partial  and  incomplete  statement.  Whether 
we  see  a  variety  in  custom  in  the  one  case,  or  an  incom- 
plete description  in  the  other,  we  must  admit  that 
changes  in  practice,  real  or  implied,  could  easily  arise. 

(d)  In  Ex.  XXX.  11-16  a  poll-tax  of  half  a  shekel  isi^)hskeke^ 

.      ,    .  ,  1  r    1        Temple-tax: 

commanded  m  every  year  that  a  census  was  taken  of  the 
Israelite  populace-  From  this  irregular  payment  an 
annual  Temple-tax  would  of  course  differ  considerably. 
But  it  has  naturally  called  for  remark,  that  in  Neh.  x.  32 
the  annual  Temple-tax  is  assessed  at  one-third  shekel  a 
head,  while  in  later  times  the  Temple  tribute-money  was 
half  a  shekel  (Matt.  xvii.  24),  a  sum  obviously  based 
on  Ex.  XXX.  11-16.  Either,  therefore,  the  one-third 
shekel  marked  the  prevailing  poverty  of  Nehemiah's 
time,  or  the  sum  mentioned  in  Ex.  xxx.  11-16,  agreeing 
with  later  custom,  marks  an  alteration  in  the  Priestly 
Law  made  after  Nehemiah's  time^  substituting  \  shekel 
for  \.     In  either  case,  freedom  of  action,  in  reference  to 


86     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IV.  important  details  contained  in  the  law,  would  be  illus- 

trated  by  this  instance. 
<c)  THhe  of  {c)  A  yet  more  remarkable  example  is  furnished  by 
the  Priestly  Law  of  tithe.  There  can  be  very  little 
doubt  that  in  the  earlier  Deuteronomic  law  (Deut.  xiv. 
22-29)  and  in  the  regulations  laid  down  by  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  X.  35-39,  xii.  44,  xiii.  5),  the  tithe  was  only  sup- 
posed to  have  reference  to  the  produce  of  the  field,  and 
consisted  mainly  of  corn,  wine,  and  oil. 

But  in  the  Priestly  Law  of  tithe  in  Lev.  xxvii.  30-33, 
'  the  law  of  the  tithe  of  the  field '  (vv.  30,  31)  is  followed 
by  '  the  law  of  the  tithe  of  the  herd  and  the  flock  ' 
(vv.  32,  ^^).  The  only  support  for  this  enormous  addi- 
tion to  the  burden,  laid  upon  the  people  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  priests  and  Levites,  is  found  in  the 
narrative  of  the  Chronicles  (2  Chron.  xxxi.  6) ;  where, 
however,  the  mention  of  the  tithe  of  oxen  and  sheep 
reads  suspiciously  like  a  later  gloss  ^. 

The  diiBculty  is  not  one  that  admits  of  full  discussion 
here.  But  clearly,  if  the  tithe  of  cattle  was  a  custom 
known  in  Nehemiah's  time,  it  was  not  exacted  ;  and  if  it 
was  not  known  then,  it  either  had  dropped  altogether 
out  of  usage,  or  it  had  never  yet  been  introduced. 
Whether,  then,  it  was  originally  in  the  Priestly  Law  and 
had  become  obsolete,  or  is  a  late  interpolation,  later  than 
Nehemiah's  time,  we  have,  in  this  case  also,  £roof  that 
s^ruples_conceining  the  text  of  Scripture  did  not  for 
some  considerable  time  arise  in  sufBcient  force  to  secure 

^  2  Chron.  xxxi.  5,  *  And  as  soon  as  the  commandment  came  abroad,  the 
children  of  Israel  gave  in  abundance  the  firstfruits  of  corn,  wine,  and  oil, 
and  honey,  and  of  all  the  increase  of  the  field ;  and  the  tithe  of  all  things 
brought  they  in  abundantly.'  Ver.  6,  *  And  the  children  of  Israel  and 
Judah,  that  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  they  also  brought  in  the  tithe  of 
oxen  and  sheep,  and  the  tithe  of  consecrated  things,'  &c. 


THE   COMPLETION  OF   THE   FIRST  CANON. 


87 


tfnr  if  immunity  from  interpolationor  rigid  uniformity  in  chap.  iv. 
[the  obseryance^ofjthejetten  _ 

[d)  A  well-known  illustration  of  the  composite  nature  i.A)Ageq/ 
|of  the  Levitical  Law  is  presented  by  the  requirements  service. 
|for  the  age  at  which  a  Levite  could  enter  upon  his  work 

lof  ministration.  In  Num.  iv.  3,  &c.  the  age  of  service  is 
Ireckoned  as  from  thirty  to  fifty,  but  in  Num.  viii.  24  it 
I  is  reckoned  as  from  twenty-five  to  fifty.  In  Ezr.  iii.  8, 
tid  in  I  Chron.  xxiii.  24-27,  however,  the  active  service 
lof  the  Levites  is  stated  by  the  Chronicler  as  commencing 
lat  the  age  of  twenty.  Whether  or  no  it  is  the  case  that 
Ithis  reduction  in  the  age  arose  in  post-exilic  times  from 
ithe  difficulty  of  obtaining  the  service  of  any  Levites  at  all 
|(cf.  Ezra  viii.  15),  it  exemplifies  the  freedom  with  which 
feven  in  the  Chroniclers  time  (circ.  2.^0 _B^CJ- variations 
[from  the  law  were  considered  unimportant  in  matters  of 
Idetail. 

(e)  The  strangest  and  most  difficult  problem,  arising  (e)  7>^/ <?/ 
[from  the  freedom  with  which  the  Torah,  in  spite  of  its  in  lxx. 

sanctity,  was  treated  in  early  times,  is  presented  by  the  ''''^^^^^^• 
condition  of  the  text  throughout  a  long  section  of 
Exodus  (xxxv-xl).  This  passage,  which  repeats  almost 
word  for  word  the  substance  of  a  previous  section 
(xxv-xxxi),  differs  considerably  in  the  Greek  text  from 
the  Hebrew  both  by  variety  of  order  and  omission  of 
verses.  Now  the  LXX  version  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
probably  composed  in  the  third  century  B.C.,  and  is  the 
most  carefully  executed  portion  of  the  Greek  Bible. 
How  then  did  these  variations  arise  ?  The  answer  is  not 
apparent.  But  the  inference  is  certainly  permissible, 
that  some  time  must  have  elapsed  before  the  veneration 
of  the  law  effectually  prevented  alterations  or  minor 
efforts  at  textual  revision. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


If  occasional 
revision  of 
old,  no 
introduction 
of  71CW  sub- 
jects of 
legislation 
permitted  : 
e.g.  wood- 
offerijtgs, 
Neh.  X.  34. 


Tendency 
towards 
■uniform 
text. 


On  the  other  hand,  the  temptation  to  introduce  fresh 
regulations,  dealing  with  new  subjects,  seems  on  the 
whole  to  have  been  successfully  resisted.  A  signal 
instance  of  this  is  afforded  by  the  mention  of  the 
regulations  for  wood-offerings.  Wood-offerings  must, 
at  all  times,  have  formed  an  important  contribution 
to  the  sanctuary;  and,  probably,  in  consequence  of  the 
wholesale  destruction  of  wood  by  the  Chaldeans  at  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem,  wood  had  become,  in  Nehemiah's 
time^  exceedingly  scarce  and  proportionately  expensive. 
The  charge  of  providing  the  needful  supply  of  wood,  for 
the  sacrifices  of  the  Temple,  was  distributed  among  the 
leading  families,  who  took  it  in  turn,  the  rotation  being 
decided  by  lot,  to  furnish  as  much  as  was  required  (Neh. 
X.  34).  From  Nehemiah's  own  words  it  is  clear  that 
that  energetic  governor  regarded  the  establishment  of 
this  rule  as  one  of  the  most  important  reforms  he  had 
been  enabled  to  carry  out  (Neh.  xiii.  31).  It  deserves 
notice,  therefore,  that,  while,  in  Neh.  x.  34,  the  rule  itself 
is  described  by  the  formula, '  As  it  is  written  in  the  law/ 
no  such  law  is  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  The 
reference  of  the  formula  can  hardly  be  limited  to  the 
mention  of  the  law  of  the  burnt-offering  (Lev.  vi.  8-13)  ; 
for  the  reference  to  the  burnt-offering  in  Neh.  x.  34  is 
perfectly  general  in  terms.  It  is  more  probable  that,  inas- 
much as  the  regulation  dealt  with  a  subject  unprovided 
for  in  existing  statutes,  it  was  decided  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  such  a  novelty  into  the  Law  should  be  avoided. 

Whatever  freedom  of  treatment  the  Canon  of  the  Law ' 
received  at  first,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  so  soon  as 
the  Priestly  Laws  became  public  property  they  began  to 
lose  elasticity.  It  w^as  only  a  matter  of  time.  Once 
regarded  as  universal   in  application,  they  would  soon 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST   CANON.  89 

become  stereotyped  in  form.  The  scribe's  task  of  tran-  chap.  iv. 
scribing  the  letter  and  of  explaining  its  application  to 
the  daily  affairs  of  life,  was  necessarily  based  on  the 
uniformity  of  the  text.  The  multiplication  of  copies, 
which  would  result  from  the  law  becoming  a  people's 
book  and  ceasing  to  be  a  priest's  book,  soon  raised  a 
barrier  against  any  extensive  change.  The  public  read- 
ing of  the  law  which  seems  to  have  been  continued  from 
the  great  example  of  Ezra  (Neh.  viii)  was  a  distinctive 
feature  of  Synagogue  worship  ;  and  liturgical  use,  while 
it  added  sanctity  to  the  books,  made  it  the  more  necessary 
that  copies  of  the  book  should  not  vary  in  their 
contents. 

That  this  first  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture  consisted  First 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  of  the  Pentateuch  only,  if  nowhere  canon 
directly   affirmed,  is  implied  by  all  the  converging  in-  ^^«^^^^«^'^- 
direct  evidence  of  which  we  can  make  use. 

{a)  It  is  implied,  by  the  fact,  that,  from  the  earliest  '  Torah, 

1.1  .  .  1  /-      i        X  T    1  /-^  (^)  Always 

time  at  which  mention  is  made  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  distinct 
the  Torah  is  mentioned  separately  as  a  distinct  group  ^^°^^- 
from  '  the  Prophets  and  the  other  writings  '  (cf.  Prologue 
to  Ecclesiasticus). 

(b)  It  is  implied  by  the  exceptional  reverence  paid  to  (b)  object oj 
the  Law  of  Moses  in  the  post-exilic  writings  of  the  Old  reverence  in 
Testament.     The  compiler  of  the  Chronicles  and  of  Ezra  ^scripture. 
and  Nehemiah  assumes  the  authority  of  the  law  in  its 
finished  form  throughout  all  the  centuries  of  the  history 
which  he  narrates.     The  prophet  Malachi  (iv.  4)  appeals 
to  the  Law  of  Moses  as  the  accredited  standard  of  doc- 
trine for  all  Israel.     In  the  Book  of  the  Psalms,  though 
it  is  true  we  have  comparatively  little  reference  to  the 
details   of  ceremonial,  the  veneration  for  the  Law,  ex- 
pressed by  the  writer  of  such  a  late  Psalm  as  Psalm  cxix, 


90  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IV.  shows  hovv  Unique  was  the  influence  of  the  Jewish  Law, 
the  earthly  emblem  of  the  Psalmist's  ideal.  It  is  only  in 
the  Book  of  Daniel  (ix.  2),  a  book  which,  in  its  present 
literary  form,  was  probably  not  composed  until  the 
second  century  B.C.,  that  we  first  find  any  mention  of 
other  writings  beside  the  Law,  to  which  appeal  could 
pe  made  as  an  authoritative  standard. 
{€)  In  later  (c)  It  is  implied  in  the  special  deference  accorded  to 
liurature.  the  Pcntatcuch  by  Jews  of  later  time,  in  comparison 
with  that  which  they  paid  to  their  other  Scriptures.  It 
is  the  Torah  which  is  the  subject  of  the  son  of  Sirach's 
eulogy  in  Ecclus.  xxii.  23  ;  and  it  is  the  Torah,  as  the 
mainstay  of  Judaism,  that  Antiochus  labours  to  de- 
stroy (i  Mace.  i.  ^']).  It  is  the  translation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch into  Greek  which  was  not  only  the  first  instalment 
of  the  Septuagint  version,  but  also,  if  we  may  judge  from 
the  rendering  and  the  style,  the  only  portion  of  the  ver- 
sion which  was  carried  out  upon  some  definite  plan,  or 
executed  with  something  of  the  accuracy  and  care  that 
would  be  demanded  for  an  authoritative  edition.  We 
may  surely  suppose,  that,  if  at  the  time  when  the  Torah 
was  translated  into  Greek,  it  constituted  the  whole 
Scriptures  of  the  Jews,  one  authoritative  Greek  version 
would  have  been  prepared  for  public  use  in  the  Syna- 
gogues. The  unequal  and  often  very  defective  transla- 
tion of  the  other  books  shows  that  the  work,  in  their  case, 
is  the  result  of  private  and  independent  literary  enter- 
prise. It  is  reasonable  to  regard  this  as  a  proof  that  the 
sacred  authority  of  the  Prophets  and  Writings  was  not 
for  some  time  recognised,  not  indeed  until  their  transla- 
tion had  become  established  by  common  use  among 
Greek- speaking  Jews.  Similarly,  it  is  to  the  Pentateuch 
far  more  than  to  any  other  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST   CANON.         9 1 

|ures,  that  Philo,  the  great  representative  of  Alexandrine  chap.  iv. 
Judaism,  ascribes  the  highest  gift  of  divine  inspiration. 

{d)  It  is  impHed  by  the  fact,  that  from  the  Torah,  and  (d)  in  Syna- 
rom  the  Torah  alone,  for  some  considerable  time  at  least,  vtce. 
lessons  were  systematically  read  in  the  public  services  of 
the  Synagogue.  It  was  not  till  a  later  time,  as  we  shall  see, 
that  lessons  were  added  from  the  Books  of  the  Prophets  ; 
and  in  their  case  it  does  not  appear  certain,  that  any 
systematic  division  into  lessons  was  adopted  until  after 
the  Christian  era  (Luke  iv.  17).  Even  in  later  days  the 
Lesson  from  the  Prophets  consisted  merely  of  an  extract, 
intended  to  supplement  and  illustrate  that  from  the 
Torah.  The  Prophets  were  never  read  continuously 
through,  like  the  Law.  The  earlier  use  and  the  earlier 
liturgical  division  of  '  the  Law '  suggest  its  earlier  recog- 
nition as  Scripture. 

(e)  It  is  implied  by  the  fact,  that  the  title  of  'the  Law '  (e)  Title 0/ 
was  long  afterwards  used  to  designate  the  whole  Hebrew  Law. 
Canon  of  Scripture,  partly  as  a  reminiscence  of  earlier 
usage,  partly  as  a  tribute  to  the  higher  esteem  in  which  the 
Law  was  held.  Cf.  John  x.  34,  xii.  34,  xv.  25, 1  Cor.  xiv.  21. 

One  piece  of  evidence  of  a  yet  more  direct  character  Direct 
is  offered  by  the  Samaritan  version  of  the  Pentateuch.  Samaritan 
The  Canon  of  Scripture  recognised  by  the  Samaritan  ^^«^«^^«^/'- 
community,  even  down  to  the  present  day,  consists  of 
the  Pentateuch  alone.     It  has  been  very  generally  and 
very  naturally  supposed,  that  the  Samaritan  community 
obtained  their  Torah,  which,  save  in  a  certain  number  of 
comparatively  unimportant  readings,  is  identical  with  the 
Jewish  Torah,  from  the  renegade  Jewish  priest,  of  the 
name,  according  to  Josephus,  of  Manasseh,  who  instituted 
on  Mount  Gerizim  a  rival  temple  worship  to  that  on 
Mount  Moriah  {Jos.  Ant,  xi.  7  and  8).     Josephus  has 


92  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

placed  this  event  in  the  days  of  Alexander  the  Great ; 
but  here  he  is  probably  a  victim  of  the  strangely  erro- 
neous views  of  chronology,  which  the  Jews  of  his  own 
and  of  later  times  have  commonly  entertained  respecting 
their  nation's  history  in  the  interval  between  the  Return 
from  the  exile  and  the  victories  of  Alexander.  We  need 
have  little  hesitation  in  connecting  Josephus'  account 
with  the  ejection  by  Nehemiah  of  the  grandson  of  the 
high  priest,  Eliashib,  who  had  married  the  daughter 
of  Sanballat,  and  had  thus  disgraced  the  family  of  the 
high  priest  (Neh.  xiii.  28).  The  latter  event  happened 
almost  exactly  a  century  before  the  age  of  Alexander's 
victories.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  two  events,  so  similar 
in  character  and  yet  so  near  in  point  of  time,  narrated 
the  one  by  Nehemiah  and  the  other  by  Josephus,  should 
be  unconnected  with  one  another.  We  may  safely 
assume  that  the  events  are  the  same,  and  that  the  grand- 
son of  Eliashib  is  the  renegade  priest,  Manasseh.  When 
this  priest,  at  the  head  probably  of  a  disaffected  Jewish 
faction,  joined  the  Samaritan  community  and  established 
an  exact  reproduction  of  Jewish  worship,  he  would  have 
carried  with  him  the  Scriptures  that  regulated  the 
Temple  worship  and  were  read  in  the  services  of  the 
Synagogue.  Now,  if  the  Canonical  Scripture  of  the  time 
consisted  of  the  Torah  alone,  we  have  here  an  explana- 
tion for  the  fact  that  the  Torah  alone  was  adopted  by 
the  Samaritans  to  be  their  Scripture.  They  adopted  that 
which  the  schismatic  Jews  brought  with  them.  The 
Scriptures,  whose  authority  was  recognised  by  the  Jews 
after  the  occurrence  of  the  schism,  never  found  a  place  in 
the  Samaritan  Canon.  Of  course,  it  may  fairly  be  con- 
tended, that  the  Samaritans  would  not  be  likely  to  adopt 
into  their  Canon  any  books  that  might  appear  to  glorify 


THE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   FIRST  CANON.  93 

he  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  But  there  were  books  against  chap.  iv. 
^'which  they  could  take  no  such  exception,  as,  for  instance, 
the  Book  of  Judges,  which  dealt  especially  with  the  heroic 
deeds  performed  in  the  northern  tribes,  or  the  Book  of 
the  prophet  Hosea,  who  was  an  Ephraimite.  If  these  had 
already  been  accepted  as  Canonical  at  Jerusalem,  the 
Samaritans  would  have  had  no  reason  for  excluding  them 
at  the  time  when  they  admitted  the  Torah  of  the  Jews. 
Had  they  once  accepted  into  their  Canon  any  other 
books  beside  the  Torah,  the  scrupulous  conservatism  in 
religious  matters,  which  has  always  distinguished  the 
Samaritan  community,  could  not  have  failed  to  preserve 
either  a  text  of  the  books  themselves  or  the  tradition  of 
their  usage.  The  limitation,  therefore,  of  the  Samaritan 
Canon  to  the  Torah  affords  presumptive  evidence  that,  at ' 
the  time  when  the  Samaritan  worship  was  instituted,  or 
when  it  received  its  final  shape  from  the  accession  of 
Jewish  malcontents,  the  Canon  of  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem 
consisted  of  the  Torah  only. 

The  expulsion  of  Eliashib's  grandson  took  place  about  'The Law' 
the  year  432  B.  c.     Approximately,  therefore,  in  this  date  caLno/^ 
we  have  a  terminus  ad  quern  for  the  conclusion  of  the  first  ^ZitT\%2 
Hebrew  Canon  of  the  Scripture.     Before  that  year,  its  ^•^■ 
limits  had  already  been  practically,  if  not  oflficially,  deter- 
mined.    At  that  time,  no  other  writing  was  regarded  by 
the  Jews  as  sacred  and  authoritative.     This  was  the  be- 
ginning of  the  era  of  the  Sopherim  or  Scribes.     Under 
their   influence  Jewish   religion    received   the    legalistic 
character  which  ever  afterwards  clung  to  it.     The  power 
of  the  prophets  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  scribes. 
The  religion  of  Israel  had  now  become,  and  was  destined 
henceforth  to  remain,  the  religion  of  a  book ;  and   the 
nucleus  of  that  book  was  the  Torah. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SECOND  CANON,  OR  THE  LAW  AND  THE 
PROPHETS. 

ch^p.  V.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.  the  Torah' 
The  Canon  h^d  received  its  final  recognition  as  Holy  Scripture. 
Ynl!!/fk£nt  '^^^  popular  veneration  for  this  'Canon,'  quite  apart  from 
the  teaching  of  the  scribes,  must  have  been  largely  due 
to  the  fact,  that  its  contents  dealt  with  the  origin  of  the 
Hebrew  race  and  with  the  foundation  of  the  Israelite  reli- 
gion. But,  in  an  even  greater  degree,  its  association 
with  the  Temple  ritual,  its  perusal  in  Synagogue  services, 
and  its  growing  use  as  the  test  of  conduct  and  doctrine 
in  social  and  private  life,  had  the  effect  of  exalting  it 
above  all  other  Hebrew  literature,  and  of  enhancing  its 
value  in  the  estimation  of  every  devout  Jew.  And  yet 
it  was  impossible  for  '  the  Law '  to  remain  the  whole 
'  Canon '  of  Jewish  Scripture.  It  lacked  the  repre- 
sentation of  that  very  element  which  had  been  the  most 
important  factor  in  the  growth  of  the  pure- religion  of 
Jehovah,  the  element  of  prophecy.  Without  prophecy, 
as  has  been  said.  '  the  Law  was  a  body  without  a  soul  ^.' 
And  although  the  prophetic  spirit  breathes  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Torah  generally  and  in  particular  in 
that  of  Deuteronomy,  nevertheless  the  Torah,  as  a  whole, 
did  not  represent  either  the  fulness  or  the  freedom 
of  prophecy. 

^  Cf.  Dillmann,  Jahrb.f.  Deutsche  Theol.  1858,  p.  441. 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  95 

It  would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  life  and  <^hap.  v. 
purity  of  Israel's  faith  had  hitherto  depended  upon  the  Prophecy 
testimony  of  the  prophets.  It  was  to  the  prophets  that  '^^ 
the  people  owed  the  revelation  of  the  Lord's  will.  In  a 
sense  they  had  been  the  true  mediators  of  the  law.  The 
consciousness  of  the  inseparableness  of  the  spirit  of  pro- 
phecy from  that  of  'the  Law/  expressed  in  such  different 
passages  as  2  Kings  xvii.  13,  Zech.  vii.  12,  and  Neh.  ix. 
a6,  was  sure,  sooner  or  later,  to  make  itself  felt  in  the 
worship  of  the  nation.  For  centuries  '  the  Word  of  God ' 
had  been  declared  to  the  people  by  the  prophet  in  the 
form  of  '  instruction '  or  Torah.  But  now  the  work  of 
the  prophet  was  over ;  '  Torah '  was  identified  with  a 
written  law,  it  was  no  longer  the  prophet's  spoken 
word.  Prophecy  had  ceased  ;  and  the  question  was, 
whether  '  the  Law '  alone  could  permanently  fill  the  gap 
which  had  thus  appeared  in  the  religious  life  of  the 
community? 

Instinctively  our  answer  is,  that  it  could  not.     And  ,^^^, 

"^  .  ^  Nebitm. 

because  it  could  not,  we  shall  see  that,  after  an  interval 
of  time,  the  writings  called  in  the   Hebrew  Canon  the 

*  Nebiim  '  or  '  Prophets  \'  gradually  received  such  recog- 
nition in  the  Jewish  Church  as  caused  them  also  to  be  set 
apart  as  Canonical  Scripture,  although  never  probably, 
in  Jewish  opinion,  estimated  of  equal  honour  with  '  the 
Law.' 

The  steps  by  which  these  additions  to  the  Canon  of 

*  the  Law '  were  made  are,  indeed,  in  a  great  measure 
hidden  from  our   view.      The  scanty  evidence   at   our 

^  A  group  consisting,  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles,  of  the  two  divisions,  {a)  '  the 
Former '  or  historical  prophets,  represented  by  the  four  books,  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings;  {b)  '  the  Latter'  or  prophetical,  represented  by 
the  four  books,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets. 


///.  Limit- 
ation. 


96  THE   CANON   OF   THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V.  command  points,  as  we  hope  to  show,  to  the  conclusion, 
jthat  the  Canonicity  of  all  'the  Prophets'  had  been 
recognized,  before  any  of  the  writings  of  the  last  group, 
or  Hagiographa,  were  included  in  the  national  Scrip- 
tures. 
/.  Causes  of  For  this  purpose,  it  is  necessary,  firstly,  to  consider 
//plTi'od.  briefly  the  circumstances  under  which  these  writings 
tended  to  obtain  such  special  recognition  as  at  once 
separated  them  from  other  literature  and  associated  them 
with  the  sacred  *  Law' ;  secondly,  to  investigate  the  limits 
of  the  period  within  which  it  seems  probable  that 
the  canonicity  of  '  the  Prophets '  was  determined  ;  and 
thirdly,  to  consider  whether  other  writings,  besides  those 
included  in  the  traditional  group  of  the  Nebiim,  received 
at  the  same  time  the  stamp  of  canonicity. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  we  consider  the  circumstances 
which  led  to  the  selection  of  'the  Prophets'  and  their 
association  with  '  the  Law.'  Attention  has  already  been 
frequently  called  to  the  literary  activity  which  prevailed 
among  the  Jews  of  Babylon  during  and  after  the  exile. 
The  desire  to  preserve  the  ancient  memorials  of  the 
race  would  have  led  to  many  works  of  compilation. 
Of  such,  a  few  only  have  survived,  and  they  entirely 
owing  to  their  having  afterwards  become  '  Canonical ' 
Scripture. 

It  would  be  a  mistake,  however,  to  suppose  that  '  the 
Prophets,'  historical  and  prophetical,  represent  only  the 
surviving  specimens  of  Israelite  literature,  that  were 
rescued  from  the  wreck  of  the  civil  community  by  the 
energy  and  industry  of  a  few  devout  men.  The  work 
which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Canon  was  not  merely 
conservative ;  it  was  also  constructive  and  selective,  con- 
structive from  the  point  of  view  of  the  historian  of  Old 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  97 

Testament  Theology,  selective  from  the  point  of  view  of   chap.  v. 
the  historian  of  Jewish  literature. 

To  the  earlier  part  of  the  exilic  period  should  pro-  Joshua, 
bably  be  referred  the  compilation  of  the  materials  of  the  ''Z^yllf 
Book  of  Joshua,  which,  based  on  the  narratives  of  the  ^^^^^ 
Jehovist-Elohist  Writing,  were  edited  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  and  eventually  combined  with    our 
Deuteronomy.   The  combination  did  not  long  outlast  the 
formation  of  the  Hexateuch  (p.  69).     To  the  close  of  the 
period  of  Nehemiah  is  to  be  ascribed  the  action  of  the 
scribes,  by  which  our  Book  of  Joshua  was  separated  from 
the  Deuteronomic  portion  of  the  '  Torah.'     The  ground 
of  the  separation  must  have  been,  either  that  its  narrative 
did  not  contain  direct  religious  teaching,  or,  as  seems 
lore  probable,  that  the  Book  of  the  Law  seemed   ta 

se  more  appropriately   with  the  death  of  the  great 

wgiven  The  close  literary  union  of  Joshua  with  >j:  am/ 
Deuteronomy  is,  on  grounds  both  of  the  style  and  of  the  ^^''^' 
continuity  of  the  subject-matter,  placed  beyond  all  doubt. 
The  fact  that  the  books  are  separate,  and,  further,  that 
they  appear  in  two  different  groups  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  at  once  becomes  intelligible,  when  we  realise 
that  an  interval  of  time  elapsed  between  the  recognition 
of  the  '  Torah  '  and  the  final  acceptance  of  '  Joshua.' 

When  we  pass  to  the  Book  of  Judges,  we  find  signs  judges; 
that  its  compilation  probably  belongs  to  the  same  period,  ^sources  oj 
It  is  well  known  to  every  careful  reader,  that  the  book  '^^f'l  ^''"'' 

-'  '  piled. 

consists  of  three  clearly  marked  portions^  which  differ  in 
style  and  treatment,  and  represent  extracts  from  different 
sources  of  narrative.  In  the  first  of  these  sections  (i.  i- 
ii.  5)  it  is  probable  that  the  narrator  borrowed  from  the 
same  ancient  literary  source  that  supplied  material  for 
the  compilation  of  Joshua;  e.g. 
H 


Books  of 
Smiiuel. 


98  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Judges 


10-15 

= 

Joshua  XV.  13, 

19. 

21 

= 

63- 

27,  28 

= 

„      xvii.  12, 

13 

29 

= 

,,      xvi.  10. 

In  the  second  (ii.  6-xvi),  which  contains  some  of  the 
oldest  fragments  of  early  Jewish  literature,  it  is  equally 
evident,  from  the  style,  that  they  have  been  compiled  or 
edited  by  one  who  writes  in  the  spirit  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic  Law.  Clear  proofs  of  his  handiwork  are  to  be 
seen  in  such  passages  as  ii.  11-23,  iii.  7-1 1,  vi.  7-10, 
X.  6-17. 

In  the  third  portion  (xvii-xxi),  containing  two  distinct 
narratives,  as  well  as  in  the  first,  '  no  traces  are  to  be 
found  of  the  hand  of  the  Deuteronomic  redactor  of  the 
middle  division  ;  there  are  no  marks  either  of  his  distinc- 
tive phraseology  or  of  his  view  of  the  history  as  set  forth 
in  ii.  11-19.  Hence  it  is  probable  that  these  divisions 
did  not  pass  through  his  hands  ;  but  were  added  to  the 
book  as  he  left  it  (ii.  6-xvi)  as  an  introduction  and  appen- 
dix respectively  hy  a  later  hand.'  (Driver^  in  the  Jewish 
Quarterly,  Jan.  1889.) 

The  compilation  of  the  whole  work  belongs  therefore 
to  the  literary  energy  of  a  period  later  than  that  of  the 
Deuteronomic  editor.  To  attempt  to  decide  the  date 
of  the  compiler  with  any  precision  would  be  out  of  the 
question.  Perhaps  we  should  assign  his  work  to  the  latter 
part  of  the  exilic  period. 

The  Books  of  Samuel  are  a  compilation,  which  contains 
some  most  ancient  elements.  The  influence  of  Deutero- 
nomy is  not  so  clearly  marked  in  them  as  in  the  Book 
of  Judges,  although  its  presence  may  probably  be 
detected  in  1  Sam.  ii.  i-ii,  27-36,  vii.  2-viii,  x.  17-26, 
xii,    XV,    2    Sam.  vii.     The  work  of  compilation  may 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  99 

therefore  have  taken  place  in  the  exilic  period.  The  chap.  v. 
materials,  however,  which  are  incorporated  in  the  Books 
of  Samuel  were  comparatively  little  modified  by  the 
compiler.  But  either  the  sources  from  which  they  were 
taken  survived  for  a  considerable  period,  and  occasioned 
the  variations  of  text  which  appear  in  the  LXX  version ; 
or  the  books  were  current  in  a  different  recension,  before 
they  received  recognition  as  Sacred  Scripture. 

The  Books  of  Kings  terminate  with  the  mention  o{  Books  of 
events  that  occurred  about  560  B.C.  In  them,  more  con- 
spicuously than  in  any  of  the  other  narrative  books,  is 
to  be  seen  the  influence  of  the  Deuteronomist.  Some 
scholars  have  supposed  this  effect  to  be  due  to  the  first 
vivid  impression  produced  by  the  publication  of  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  and  have  therefore  placed  the  first 
compilation  as  early  as  the  last  decade  of  the  seventh 
cent.  B.C.  (610-600).  They  have  suggested  that,  half-a- 
century  later,  various  additions  were  made  and  the  last 
chapters  of  the  history  appended. 

The  composite  character  of  the  narrative  is  obviously 
expressed  by  the  writer's  reference  to  *  The  Book  of  the 
Acts  of  Solomon '  (i  Kings  xi.  41),  and  by  frequent 
allusions  to  '  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings 
of  Israel  and  Judah,'  as  well  as  by  the  clearly  marked 
excerpts  from  a  narrative  history  of  the  prophets,  espe- 
cially of  Elijah  and  Elisha  (e.  g.  i  Kings  xvii-xix,  xxi, 
2  Kings  i-viii,  xiii.  14-19).  The  date  of  its  compilation 
can  hardly  be  placed  earlier  than  the  close  of  the  sixth 
cent.  B.C. 

Now  from   the  composite  character  of  the  historical 

books  we  may  infer  the  existence  of  abundant  narrative 

material  at  the  period  when  their  compilation  took  place. 

But  we  can  gather  from  the  books  themselves  what  the 

H  1 


lOO  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V.    qualities  were,  which   led  to  their   being  selected   and 
eventually  preferred  above  all  other  historical  memoirs 
Distinctive   dealing  with  the  same  events.      Over   and   above   the 
nirrative     truthfulness,  the  dignity,  the  beauty,  the  vividness,  the 
'^'^  ^'  simplicity  of  their  narratives,  stands    one   pre-eminent 

characteristic,  which  at  once  explains  the  mould  in  which 
they  were  cast  and  imparts  to  their  narrative  its  wonderful 
power  to  teach.  This  was  the  spirit  of  Hebrew  prophecy 
interpreting  to  us  the  course  of  history  in  accordance 
with  the  eternal  principles  of  Divine  Revelation.  The 
four  narrative  books  of  *  the  Prophets '  are  no  mere 
catalogues  of  facts,  they  are  not  even  a  continuous  uniform 
history.  They  unfold  the  workings  of  '  the  law  of  Jeho- 
vah' in  the  history  of  Israel,  both  in  their  description  of 
the  nation's  internal  development  and  in  their  picture  of 
its  relation  to  other  nations. 

If  now  the  historical  books  were  finally  selected, 
because  in  a  special  manner  they  set  forward  the  history 
of  Israel's  past,  judged  by  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and 
in  the  light  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  it  is  natural  to 
ascribe  the  beginning  of  their  separation  from  other 
literature  to  a  period,  when  the  work  and  teaching  of 
the  prophets  were,  for  some  reason  or  other,  attracting 
especial  attention,  and  claiming  peculiar  veneration. 
witiiessof       Before  the  exile,  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  found  them- 

PropJiets,  .  . 

during  selves,  as  often  as  not,  m  opposition  to  the  dominant  form 
of  religion.  Their  sayings  were  perpetuated  either  orally 
or  in  the  writings  of  their  disciples  ;  but  their  testimony, 
if  preserved  in  the  recollection  of  the  people,  as  in  the 
instance  of  Micah  the  Morashtite  (Jer.  xxvi,  i8),  did  not 
at  once  obtain  any  hold  over  the  religious  thought  of  the 
nation  in  a  literary  form.  The  acquaintance,  however, 
of  the  prophets  with  the  words  of  their  own  predecessors 


Monarchy^ 
not  popu- 
larly ac- 
ceptable. 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  101 


r 

^in  the  ministry  of  prophecy  is  openly  avowed.     Jeremiah    chap.  v. 
borrows  largely  from  other  sources.     Ezekiel  appeals  to 
the  predictions  of  the  prophets  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  17)  which 
the  people  had  disregarded. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  exile,  the  power  and  prestige  change  pro 
of  the  prophets  must  have  been  greatly  enhanced,  in  the  Exiulnd 
estimation  of  their  countrymen,  by  the  evidently  ^^^"^"• 
approaching  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  of  Jeremiah. 
The  prophet  Zechariah  could  appeal  to  the  fulfilment  of 
the  words  of '  the  former  prophets  '  (cf  Zech.  i.  4,  vii.  7, 
12).  Both  the  catastrophe  of  the  exile  and  the  joy  of 
the  return  confirmed  the  confidence  of  the  faithful,  and 
removed  the  doubts  of  the  wavering,  in  respect  of  the 
mission  of  the  prophets.  The  descendants  of  the  genera- 
tion that  had  sought  to  put  Jeremiah  to  death  rallied  to 
the  exhortations  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  (Ezra  v.  i). 
The  reverence  for  the  prophets  was  heightened,  as  it 
became  increasingly  evident,  that  the  gift  of  prophecy 
was  becoming  more  rare  and  threatened  to  become 
extinct.  Zechariah  foresees  the  time  at  hand  when  the 
claim  to  prophecy  shall  betoken  imposture  (Zech.  xiii.  3). 
In  the  days  of  Nehemiah,  the  old  prophets  are  referred 
to  as  the  ministers  of  Jehovah,  who  had  witnessed  in  the 
past  to  a  stubborn  disobedient  race  and  had  been  dis- 
regarded (Neh.  ix.  26,  30).  Modern  prophets  were 
largely  intriguers  (Neh.  vi.  7,  14).  And  if  one  more  voice 
of  prophecy  was  to  be  heard,  it  was  to  testify,  that  the 
day  was  past  for  that  form  of  delivering  Jehovah's 
message,  and  to  express  the  belief,  as  it  were,  in  its 
last  breath,  that,  through  the  witness  of  no  new  prophet 
but  only  through  the  return  of  Elijah,  the  prototype  of 
prophecy,  could  be  brought  about  the  regeneration  of  so 
corrupt  a  people  (Mai.  iv.  5,  6). 


103  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V,  It  was,  then,  at  the  time  when  the  Canon  of  the  Law 
Increased  was  already  recognized,  that  the  veneration  for  prophecy 
FropZcy.  S^^^  apacc,  and  made  the  people  deplore  its  decay  and 
resolve,  so  far  as  possible,  to  preserve  the  words  of  the 
ancient  prophets  from  perishing.  It  is,  therefore,  import- 
ant as  well  as  interesting,  to  find  that  one  of  the  few  tradi- 
tions, respecting  the  collection  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
connects  the  task  of  forming  a  library,  in  which  pro- 
phetical and  historical  works  are  especially  mentioned, 
with  the  labours  of  Nehemiah.  The  tradition  is  con- 
tained in  a  certain  letter,  prefixed  to  the  Second  Book  of 
Maccabees,  which  purports  to  be  addressed  by  Jews  in 
Palestine  to  their  countrymen  in  Egypt  in  the  year  144 
B.C.  The  letter  is  generally,  and  on  good  grounds,  con- 
sidered by  scholars  to  be  spurious  ;  but  even  so,  the 
possibility  remains,  that  the  traditions  which  are  contained 
in  the  letter  may  have  been  obtained  from  other  sources 
AuAncieiit  of  a  morc  trustworthy  kind.     The  tradition  which  here 

tradition  : 

■iMaccxx.  13.  concerns  us  mentions  a  current  report,  *  how  (Nehemiah) 
founded  a  library  and  gathered  together  the  books  (or, 
things)  concerning  the  kings  and  prophets,  and  the 
(books)  of  David  and  letters  of  kings  about  sacred  gifts ' 
(2  Mace.  ii.  13)^.  These  words  throw  no  light  upon  the 
recognition  of  any  portion  of  the  Canon.  But  they 
connect  with  the  memory  of  Nehemiah,  and  therefore, 
probably,  with  the  whole  generation  which  he  per- 
sonified, the  preservation  of  public  documents,  and  of 
historical  records  and  court  memoirs  of  national  interest. 
As  we  have  before  had  occasion  to  observe,  the  preser- 
vation and  collection  of  writings  mark  the  stage  in  the 
history  of  the  canonical  writings  which  is  prelimi- 
nary to  their  especial  selection  for  liturgical   use  and 

^  See  Excursus  D.  v. 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  103 

religious  purposes  generally.  While,  therefore,  we  have  chap.  v. 
no  right  to  assume,  as  has  often  been  done,  that  the 
writings  referred  to  in  the  Epistle  are  to  be  identified 
with  'the  Nebiim,'  with  'the  Psalms,'  and  with*  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,'  there  is  fair  reason  to  suppose,  that,  in  Nehe- 
miah's  time,somesucha  collection  of  books  and  documents 
was  made,  and  that  amongst  them  were  possibly  some 
of  the  books  afterwards  embodied  in  the  Canon,  some, 
too,  of  the  older  documents  on  which  they  were  based. 

II.  Having,  then, reached  this  probable  conclusion,  that  iv/ieu  tvere 
in  the  days  of  Nehemiah  a  special  interest  had  been  regarded a^j 
aroused  in  the  preservation  of  the  writings  and  sayings    ^*''^^"^^- 
of  the  prophets,  we  have  next  to  consider  within  what 
limits  of  time  we  should  place  the  process,  by  which  they 
came  to  be  recognized  as  authoritative  Scripture. 

We  might    naturally   assume  that   such   recognition 
would  not  take  place,  until  some  time  had  elapsed  after 
the  acceptance  of  the  Law  as  the  people's  Scripture.     The  , 
sanctity  and  dignity  of  '  the  Law '  must  at  first  have  over- 
shadowed everything  else.     A  possible  illustration  of  its 
influence  may  be  found  in  the  historical  sketch  contained 
in  the  prayer  of  Ezra,  and  the  Levites  (Neh.  ix).     The  The  Law  ai 
details  of  the  sacred  narrative  are  there  all  drawn  from  the  shldlwed 
Pentateuch  (vv.  6-25) ;  and,  though  allusions  are  made  ^^^//^,Ty 
to  events  of  later  history  (e.  g.  vv.  27,  30),  these  are  ex- 
pressed only  in  vague  outline  and  in  the  most  general 
terms,  and  the  great  names  of  Joshua,  of  Gideon,  of 
Samuel,    of    David,    of   Solomon,    of  Elijah   are   con- 
spicuously absent.     Whether  the  historical  Psalms  cv, 
cvi.  belong  to  this  date  or  not,  we  cannot  say.     But  it  is 
noticeable,  that  in  them,  as  in  Neh.  ix,  reference  to  the 
merciful  dealings  of  God  with  His  people  Israel  is,  for  the 
most  part,  limited  to  the  events  included  within  the  range 


ofcoinpila 
Won. 


104  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

of  the  Pentateuchal  literature.  And  the  explanation  is 
probably  this,  that  these  religious  songs  are  based  upon 
the  Canon  of  the  '  Torah,'  made  familiar  to  the  people  by 
the  service  of  the  Synagogue. 

Turning  for  a  moment  to  the  books  of  the  prophets, 
we  can  possibly  glean  hints  from  some  of  them  as  to  the 
date  of  the  revision,  which  presumably  immediately  pre- 
ceded their  admission  to  the  rank  of  Holy  Scripture. 
Isaiah,  date  IsaiaJi.  In  our  book  of  Isaiah,  the  first  portion  (i-xxxv) 
consists  of  collections  of  prophecies  written,  most  of 
them  (i-xxiii,  xxviii-xxxiii),  by  Isaiah  himself.  Several 
of  them,  however,  the  best  scholars  judge  to  be  derived 
from  a  much  later  time.  Now,  if  the  period  of  the  exile 
prove  to  be,  as  is  very  probably  the  case,  the  date  of 
chaps,  xxxiv,  xxxv,  and  if  a  post-exilic  date  be  assigned 
to  the  group  chaps,  xxiv-xxvii.  (see  Ewald,  Delitzsch, 
Dillmann,  Driver) \  we  perceive  at  once,  that  the  compi- 
lation of  this  first  portion  only — to  which  have  been 
appended  both  an  extract  from  the  Book  of  Kings 
(2  Kings  xviii-xix)  and  the  song  of  Hezekiah  (xxxviii. 
9-20),  obtained  probably  from  some  independent  collec- 
tion of  national  psalms — can  hardly  have  taken  place 
much  before  the  period  of  Nehemiah.  It  may  be 
conjectured,  that  the  addition  of  the  concluding  section 
(xl-lxvi),  which  makes  ao  claim  to  Isaianic  authorship, 
but  indisputably  reflects  the  thought  of  the  closing  years 
of  the  exile,  was  added  at  a  time  when  the  prophetical 
writings  were  being  collected  and  edited  by  the  scribes, 
and  when,  the  recollection  of  the  authorship  of  this 
section  having  been  forgotten,  it  could,  not  unnaturally, 
be  appended  to  the  writings  of  Isaiah. 

^  See  however,  '  An  Examination  of  the  Objections  brought  against  the 
genuineness  of  Is.  xxiv-xxvii,'  by  W.  E.  Barnes,  B.D.  (Cambridge,  1891). 


THE   SECOND  CANON.  I05 

Jeremiah.  In  the  case  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah,  we  Chap.  v. 
have  clear  evidence  that  some  interval  of  time  elapsed  jeremmh, 
between  the  decease  of  the  prophet  and  the  age  in  which  ^J^fj^^J./ 
his  prophecies  were  edited.  This  may  be  shown  by  the 
fact  that  chap,  xxxix.  1-13  is  condensed  from  2  Kings 
XXV.  1-12,  and  that  the  concluding  chapter  (Hi)  is  derived 
from  2  Kings  xxiv.  18,  &c.,  and  xxv.  27-30.  It  would 
also  appear  from  the  dislocated  order  of  the  prophecies. 
The  existence,  again,  of  great  variations  in  the  text  of 
the  LXX  version  points  to  the  probability  of  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  having  once  been  current  in  some  other  form, 
as,  for  instance,  in  smaller  collections  of  prophecies.  This 
variation  in  form  would  probably  be  earlier  in  date  than 
their  final  recognition  as  sacred  Scripture,  after  which 
event  it  isriut  likely  that  any  important  changes  could 
be  introduced. 

Minor  Prophets.     In    the   collection   of  the    Twelve  Minor 

Prophets. 

Minor  Prophets,  we  have  possible  indications  of  the  limit 
of  time,  before  which  it  is  at  any  rate  improbable  that 
these  writings  were  received  as  sacred  Scripture.  It  is 
likely  enough  that  they  already  formed  a  distinct  collec- 
tion, and  were  already  treated  as  a  single  work,  when 
they  were  first  raised  to  Canonical  dignity.  For  it 
appears,  that  to  the  editor  who  combined  them  are  due 
not  only  the  headings  prefixed  to  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos, 
Micah,  but  also  the  title  given  to  the  three  last  groups 
of  prophecy,  irrespective  of  their  different  authorship, 
'  The  burden  of  the  word  of  the  Lord,'  Zech.  ix.  i,  xii.  i, 
and  Mai.  i.  i. 

As  to  the  date  of  their  compilation,  we  gain  some  idea  Maiachi. 
from  knowing  that  Malachi  was  composed  at  or  about 
the  time  of  Nehemiah's  governorship  (445-433  B.  c).     A 
collection  of  prophetical  writings  which  iij^iude 


s  whichiij^deijhat  of 


I06  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V.  Malachi,  could  hardly  have  been  made  until  some  time 
had  elapsed  from  the  date  of  its  composition.  We  cannot 
suppose,  that  popular  opinion  would  have  approved  the 
incorporation  of  recent,  or  almost  contemporary,  work 
in  the  same  collection  with  the  older  prophets.  Many 
years  would  have  to  slip  away,  before  it  was  fully  realised 
that  Malachi  was  the  last  of  the  great  series.  Perhaps 
nearly  a  century  had  passed,  before  his  countrymen 
learned  to  class  his  words  with  those  of  his  honoured 
and  more  venerable  predecessors. 

fonah.  Ifj  as  sccms  vcry  possible  from   the  evidence  of  the 

language,  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  an  allegory  written,  for  a 
didactic  purpose,  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  century  B.C., 
it  would  hardly,  we  think,  have  been  admitted  at  once 
among  the  earlier  prophets  of  Israel.  Some  time  must 
have  elapsed  since  its  composition,  the  popularity  of 
the  work  been  assured,  and  the  hero  of  the  story  been 
generally  identified  with  the  prophet  of  Gath-hepher 
(2  Kings  xiv.  25),  before  it  obtained  its  unique  position, 
corresponding  to  the  date  of  the  supposed  writer,  of  a 
narrative  among  the  Minor  Prophets. 

zechariah.  The  Writings  of  Zechariah  (i-viii)  received  an  exten- 
sive addition  (ix-xiv)  of  uncertain  date  and  unknown 
authorship  from  the  hands  of  a  compiler.  This  must 
have  been  effected,  when  the  recollection  of  what  were  and 
what  were  not  Zechariah's  writings, had  become  indistinct; 
probably,  therefore,  later  than  the  fifth  century  B.C. 

From  the  indications  thus  given  by  the  contents  and 
structure  of  the  books  themselves^,  we  infer  that,  in  the 
case  of  '  the  Prophets,'  if  the  process  of  special  collec- 

^  The  evidence  of  Joel  has  been  purposely  omitted,  on  account  of  the 
great  uncertainty,  whether  the  post-exilic  date,  ascribed  to  it,  can  be  con- 
sidered to  have  been  substantiated. 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  I07 


r 

^Ption  was  begun  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  that  of  their  chap.  v. 
^B  selection  and  recognition  as  sacred  Scripture  can  hardly 
^«  have  begun  until  a  century  later.  This  is  an  im- 
pression for  which  we  derive  some  support  from  the 
condition  of  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  version.  The 
marked  divergency  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek 
text,  in  the  Books,  for  instance,  of  Samuel  and  the  pro- 
phet Jeremiah,  points  to  the  existence  of  different  Hebrew 
recensions  current  not  long  before  the  Greek  translation 
was  made  in  Alexandria,  or  to  a  different  text  being 
recognized  by  the  scribes  in  Palestine  from  that  which 
was  best  known  in  Egypt.  Differences  of  recension  were 
not  likely  to  have  been  permitted  after  the  books  had 
once  obtained  a  special  recognition.  So  long  as  varieties 
of  texts  existed  side  by  side,  so  long,  we  may  assume, 
the  books  had  not  been  invested  by  the  Jews  with  any 
strict  ideas  of  Canonicity.  The  particular  recension  of 
the  book,  which  happened  to  receive  Canonical  recogni- 
tion from  the  scribes,  would  be  that  which  in  after  time 
suffered  least  from  the  accidents  of  transmission,  because 
its  preservation  had  been  the  object  of  special  care.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  a  Hebrew  text,  representing  the 
recension  which  accompanied  the  admission  of  the  book 
within  the  precincts  of  the  Canon,  may  preserve  to  us  a 
text  differing  more  widely  from  the  original  than  that  of 
the  Septuagint  version.  It  is  possible,  in  other  words, that 
the  existing  Hebrew  text  may  represent  a  poorer  text 
from  the  fact  that  it  has  been  more  studiously  '  revised  ' 
by  the  scribes.  Against  that,  however,  must  be  set  the 
undoubtedly  greater  freedom  with  which  the  Jews  in 
Alexandria  handled  the  national  Scriptures.  Interpola- 
tion in  Egypt  may  be  set  off  against  '  redaction '  pro- 
cesses in  Palestine  and  Babylon. 


io8 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Injluences  ; 
Alexan- 
der's 
Victories, 
reaction 
against 
legalism. 


We  assume,  therefore,  that  the  Greek  translation 
of  'the  Prophets'  was  for  the  most  part  completed 
before  their  Canonical  character  had  been  determined, 
or  recognized,  in  Alexandria.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  evidence  of  the  '  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus '  is  con- 
clusive, that  the  Canonicity  of  '  the  Prophets '  had 
been  accepted  there  since  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  B.C. 

It  deserves  passing  notice  that  the  Chronicler,  writing 
about  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  and  making 
large  extracts  from  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings, 
makes  no  sign  of  consciousness  that  he  is  borrowing 
material  from  any  peculiarly  sacred  source. 

If  our  general  line  of  argument  be  admitted,  the  date 
which  we  assign  for  the  iermijins  a  quo  of  the  period, 
within  which  the  Canonicity  of  the  prophets  was  recog- 
nized, will  be  not  earlier  than  300  B.C.  Was  it  the  spread 
of  Hellenic  culture  that  followed  in  the  wake  of  Alexan- 
der's victories,  which  contributed  the  crowning  impulse 
to  the  desire  of  the  Jewish  community  to  expand  the 
limits  of  their  sacred  literature,  and  to  admit  the  writings 
of  the  Prophets,  for  purposes  of  public  reading,  into  the 
'ark'  of  the  Synagogue.?  It  is  a  thought  fruitful  in 
interesting  speculation.  It  cannot  be  affirmed  upon 
the  basis  of  any  direct  evidence,  but  it  surely  is  a  not 
improbable  suggestion.  Whether  also  '  something  like 
a  reaction  against  the  spirit  of  Ezra  ^ '  may  partly  account 
for  the  elevation  of '  the  Prophets '  to  the  rank  of  Holy 
Scripture  by  the  side  of  '  the  Law,'  is  also  a  question 
which,  if,  for  lack  of  evidence,  it  admits  of  no  certain 
answer,  is  certainly  a  suggestive  conjecture.  It  is  an 
interesting  thought,  that   the    fascination    of   the   new 

^  Cheyne,  The  Origin  of  the  Psalter,  p.  363. 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  IO9 

Hellenic  literature  and  the  spiritual  sterility  of  the  in-    Chap,  v. 
terpretation  which  the  Jewish    scribes    applied  to  'the 
Law,'  may  have  been  forces  operating  together,  though 
from  opposite  sides,  to  bring  about  the  inclusion  of  *  the 
Prophets  '  within  the  Hebrew  Canon. 

The  task  of  determining  a  terminus  ad  qitem  for  this 
period  is,  perhaps,  not  so  difficult.  At  least,  the  evidence 
which  is  here  at  our  disposal  is  of  a  more  definite 
character ;  and  it  tends  to  show  that,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century  B.C.,  the  Prophets  had  already,  for 
some  time,  occupied  the  position  in  the  Flebrew  Scriptures 
which  was  assigned  to  them  by  later  tradition.  Before 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  the  second 
stage  in  the  formation  of  the  Canon  had  ended  ;  and  the 
limits  of  'the  Law  and  the  Prophets'  had  been  deter- 
mined. 

(i.)  The  first  evidence  to  this  effect  that  we  have  to  Ecciesiasu- 
notice  is  that  which  is  supplied  by  the  writings  of  Jesus,  wisdom  of 
the  son  of  Sirach,  whose  collection  of  proverbial  sayings  /^^"^'^ 
is  contained  in  the  book,  known  to  English  readers  as  ^i^^ch 

^  circ.  180 

Ecclesiasticus,  which  was  composed  about  the  year  180  b.c. 
B.C.  In  his  celebrated  eulogy  (ch.  xliv-1)  upon  '  the 
famous  men '  of  Israel,  he  refers  to  events  as  they  are 
recorded  in  the  Books  of  Joshua,  Samuel  and  Kings  ^. 
When  he  refers  to  Isaiah,  he  expressly  ascribes  to  him  the 
comforting  of  'them  that  mourn  in  Zion '  (Isaiah  Ixi.  3). 
Shortly  afterwards,  he  makes  mention  of  Jeremiah,  using 
of  him  language  borrowed  from  his  own  prophecies  (Jer. 
i.  5~io)'     H;^  proceeds,  next,  to  speak  of  Ezekiel,  refer- 

^  The  Judges  are  dismissed  in  a  couple  of  verses  (Ecclus.  xlvi.  11,  12). 
For  Joshua,  see  ch.  xlvi.  1-6;  for  the  Books  of  Samuel,  see  ch.  xlvi.  13- 
xlvii.  II ;  for  the  Books  of  Kings,  see  ch.  xlvii.  12-xlix.  3.  Isaiah  is  men- 
tioned, ch.  xlviii.  20-25  ;  Jeremiah,  ch.  xlix.  6,  7 ;  Ezekiel,  ch.  xlix.  8,  9 ; 
the  Twelve  Prophets,  ch.  xlix.  10. 


no  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V.  ring  especially  to  his  mysterious  vision  (Ezek.  i.  28).  He 
then  makes  mention  of  the  'Twelve  Prophets/  who 
'  comforted  Jacob  and  delivered  them  by  assured  hope.' 
He  speaks  of  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  and,  although  his 
notice  of  them  may  be  based  on  the  writings  of  Haggai 
(ii.  3)  and  Zechariah  (iii.  1),  it  is  clear  from  his  references 
to  Nehemiah,  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  substance 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In,  at  least,  one  passage  he 
makes  allusion  to  the  Books  of  Chronicles  (xlvii.  9, 
cf.  I  Chron.  xvi.  4).  In  other  passages  he  makes  use 
of  language  in  which  have  been  noted  parallelisms  with 
the  Psalter,  with  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  with  the  Book  of 
Job,  and,  though  this  is  very  doubtful,  with  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes. 

The  writer  alludes,  therefore,  to  other  books  besides 
those  which  are  included  in  'the  Law  and  the  Prophets.' 
It  is  not,  however,  possible  for  us  to  infer  anything  more 
from  this  than  that  '  the  son  of  Sirach '  was  well  ac- 
quainted, as  we  might  have  expected,  with  the  literature 
of  his  countrymen,  with  books  which  undoubtedly  existed 
in  his  day,  were  largely  read,  and  afterwards  included 
within  the  Canon. 

The  two  most  important  features    in   his   testimony 
The  'fam-    are   [a)  the  systematic   order  of  his  allusions  to   *  the 
mentiojted    famous    men,'   and   (b)    his    mention    of   the   '  Twelve 
^Sa-^ipture.     Prophcts.'     [o)  In  his  list  of 'the  famous  men'  he  seems 
to  follow  the  arrangement  of  the  books  of  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets,  to  which,  we  might  suppose,  were  popularly 
added,  by  way  of  appendix,  the  writings  from  which  he 
derived  his  mention  of  Zerubbabel,  Jeshua,  and  Nehe- 
miah.    Towards  the  close  of  his  reference  to  the  Books 
of  Kings,  he  naturally  introduces  his  mention  of  Isaiah 
in  connexion  with  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.     After  he  has 


I 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  Ill 


finished  his  review  of  the  historical  books,  he  mentions  in  Chap.  v. 
succession  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  '  the  Twelve  Prophets/ 
and  he  appends  the  names  of  the  heroes  of  the  Return 
from  the  Captivity,  before  passing  on  to  describe  the 
glories  of  his  own  great  contemporary,  the  high  priest 
Simon,  (d)  The  fact  that  he  mentions  the  'Twelve  r/ie  Twelve 
Prophets/  proves  that,  in  his  time,  this  title  was  given 
to  a  group  of  prophets,  whose  writings  had  long  been 
known  both  in  the  form  and  with  the  name  of  a  sepa- 
rate collection,  clearly  identical  with  that  in  which 
they  appear  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon. 

We  have  said  that  his  mention  of  Zerubbabel,  Jeshua, 
and  Nehemiah  seems  to  imply  his  recognition  of  the 
books  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  as  a  kind  of  appendix  to  the 
historical  books  of  the  Prophets.  It  is  possible  that 
other  books  may  have  occupied  a  similar  position.  But 
that  a  clearly  marked  line  of  separation  was  drawn 
between  such  books  and  those  that  were  regarded  as 
Canonical  is  probably  implied  by  the  writer's  omission  Significant 
of  Ezra,  Job,  Daniel,  Esther,  and  Mordecai  from  the  TX^Esth., 
list  of  the  famous  ones  of  Israel.  The  omission  of  ^"'^• 
Ezra,  regarded  by  itself,  would  not  have  had  any  such 
significance  ;  for  the  mention  of  Nehemiah  shows  the 
writer's  acquaintance  with  the  latter  portion  of  the 
Chronicler's  work.  But  when  we  recollect  the  position 
that  Ezra  occupied  in  later  Hebrew  tradition,  when  we 
remember,  too,  the  popularity  which  the  stories  of  Esther 
and  Daniel  obtained  in  later  times,  it  is  hardly  possible 
to  suppose  that,  in  so  striking  a  list  of  the  heroes  and 
champions  of  his  people  mentioned  in  Jewish  Scripture, 
the  author  would  have  omitted  these  great  names,  if  he 
had  known  that  his  readers  were  familiar  with  their  story, 


112  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT, 

or  if  their  story  had,  in  his  day,  been  found  in  the  J 


jPsh 


Canon.  '^^ 

(ii.)  The  next  piece  of  evidence  to  be  noticed  is  that 
which  is  suppHed  by  the  Book  of  Daniel,  which,  in  all 
probability,  was  compiled,  if  not  actually  composed,  in  or 
Dan.  ix.  2.  about  the  year  1 6^  B.C.  We  find  in  chap.  ix.  2  a  reference 
to  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  which  the  writer  speaks  of 
as  forming  a  portion  of  what  he  calls  '  the  books.'  His 
words  are,  '  In  the  first  year  of  his  (Darius')  reign  I 
Daniel  understood  by  the  books  the  number  of  the  years, 
whereof  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah  the 
prophet  for  the  accomplishing  of  the  desolation  of  Jeru- 
salem, even  seventy  years.'  The  author  here  refers  to  a 
group  of  writings  which  included  the  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah,  and  which  for  some  reason  he  designates  '  the 
Sepharim,'  or  '  tJie  books.'  It  is  a  natural  supposition — 
when  we  recollect  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  itself  never 
had  a  place  among  'the  Prophets' — that  the  writer  or 
compiler  of  Daniel  wrote  these  words  when  the  Canon 
of  '  the  Prophets  '  had  already  been  determined.  It 
appears  probable,  at  any  rate,  that  the  writer  of  Daniel 
was  here  referring  to  this  group  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
By  the  title  which  he  gives  to  them,  equivalent  almost  to 
the  later  term  'the  Scriptures/  though  hardly  yet  em- 
ployed in  so  technical  a  sense,  the  writer  testifies  to  his 
knowledge  of  certain  important  and  sacred  books  set 
apart  for  religious  use,  and  evidently  expects  his  readers 
to  know  what  'The  Books'  were,  to  which  he  refers,  and 
in  which  were  included  prophecies  of  Jeremiah. 
Greek  Pro-  {\\\.)  Lastly,  wc  take  the  evidence  supplied  by  the 
c'esiastiais ;  Greek  Prologuc  to  Ecclesiasticus,  written  by  the  grand- 
*^^^"^'         son  of  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  about  the  year  132  B.C.  ^ 

'  See  Chap.  VI,  and  Excursus  D. 


IpBfTiree  tim 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  113 


iree  times  over  he  there  makes  mention  of '  the  Pro-  chap.  v. 
phets '  as  a  second  group  in  the  tripartite  division  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  There  is  practically  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  *  the  Prophets '  thus  mentioned  are  identical 
with  the  group  that  has  become  familiar  to  us  in  the 
traditional  arrangement  of  the  Canon.  Be  this  as  it 
may,  the  evidence  of  the  Prologue  is  sufficient  to  show 
that,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  one  division  of  the  sacred 
books  of  his  people  was  known  by  the  name  of '  the  Pro- 
phets/ and  was,  in  his  time,  part  of  a  well-established 
arrangement,  which  he  could  assume  his  readers  in 
Alexandria  to  be  perfectly  acquainted  with. 

On  the  basis,  therefore,  of  the  external  evidence,  TAe 
coupled  with  the  testimony  of  the  books  themselves,  'fehcted%yo- 
we  arrive  at  the  probable  conclusion  that  the  formation  of  ^°°  ^•^• 
the  group  of 'the  Prophets,'  having  been  commenced  not 
earlier  than  the  year  300  B.  C,  was  brought  to  a  comple- 
tion by  the  end  of  the  same  century.  We  may  conjecture 
that  the  conclusion  of  the  second  Canon,  viz., '  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,'  may  have  been  reached  under  the 
High  Priesthood  of  Simon  H  (1^19-199  B.  c).  Having 
first  been  added  as  a  kind  of  necessary  appendix  to 
the  Law,  '  the  Prophets  '  had  gradually  grown  in  esti- 
mation, until  they  seemed  partially  to  fill  the  gap,  which 
the  people  never  ceased  to  deplore  in  the  disappearance 
of  the  prophetic  gift  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  9,  i  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix. 
27,  xiv.  41,  Song  of  Three  Children,  15).  Before  the 
close  of  the  third  cent.  B.  c.  they  ranked  as  Scripture, 
after  'the  Law,'  and  above  all  other  writings. 

In  this  we  should  surely  reverently  acknowledge  the  The  value  of 
guiding  hand  of  Providence.     For.  thus,  it  was  divinely  [teZjnthe 
""~ovefrffled   that,    on   the   eve    of  the  g:reat  crisis,  whenT^'.^'^/ 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  seconded    only  too  skilfully  by  Epiphanes. 
I 


114  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V.    the   turpitude  of  the  Jewish   high  priests,   Jason  and 
"  Alcimus,  sought  to  obliterate  the  religious  distinctive- 

ness of  the  Jewish  people,  to  break  down  the  wall  of 
separation,  and  to  reduce  their  religion  to  the  level 
of  a  local  variety  of  Hellenic  paganism,  another  bulwark 
had  been  opportunely  raised  in  the  defence  of  the 
pure  religion  of  Jehovah.  The  veneration  of  'the 
Law '  was  deepened  in  the  hearts  of  '  the  Pious  * 
(the  Khasidtni)  by  the  recognition  of  the  prophets.  The 
temper  which  reckoned  '  the  Prophets  '  as  part  of  the 
inspired  Scriptures  of  the  people  was  a  pledge  of  the  ' 
success  of  the  Maccabean  revolt. 

III.  One  question  remains  to  be  asked.  Did  the 
group,  called  'the  Prophets,'  in  this  second  stage  of 
the  development  of  the  Canon,  include  any  book  which 
is  not  found  in  the  traditional  order  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures?  Did  any  of  the  books  which  are  now 
included  within  '  the  Hagiographa '  originally  belong  to 
'  the  Prophets  '  ? 
Other  books      Wc  havc  already  noticed  the  probability,  that,  at  the 

kvowit,  not    ,         .        .  _ 

recognized  begmnmg  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  other  highly 
Tiire"'^  venerated  writings  formed  a  kind  of  appendix  to  the 
Prophets,  without  being  as  yet  actually  included  in  the 
Canon.  Thus,  besides  the  historical  writings  of  Chro- 
nicles, Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  collections  of  Psalms  and 
Proverbs  were  doubtless  familiarly  known.  But  there  is 
little  ground  for  supposing  that  these  writings  were  ever 
combined  in  the  same  group  with  the  writings  of  '  the 
Prophets.'  The  collection  of  '  the  Prophets,'  if  we  may 
judge  from  its  contents,  was  evidently  intended  to  be 
homogeneous.  Purposes  of  public  reading  in  the  Syna- 
gogue had,  we  may  well  imagine,  determined  their 
selection.     In  this  case,  writings,  differing  widely  from 


THE   SECOND   CANON.  I15 

one  another  in  character,  differing  also,  for  the  most  part,   chap.  v. 
from  'the  Prophets'  in  style  and  subject-matter,  were 
not   likely  to   be  associated   with   them.     They  would 
require  the  formation  of  a  new  and  distinct   group  of 
Scripture. 

The  Books,  however,  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations  have 
occasioned  some  little  uncertainty.  Much  doubt  has 
been  felt  as  to  which  group  they  originally  belonged 
to,  '  the  Prophets  '  or  'the  Writings.'  In  the  Septuagint 
Version,  the  Book  of  Ruth  follows  the  Book  of  Judges,  Ruth  and 
and  the  Book  of  Lamentations  follows  that  of  Jeremiah.  ^oTin  ' 
By  many  it  has  been  thought  that  the  Septuagint  Ver-  '^^^«^' 
sion  has  thus  preserved  their  original  position ;  in  other 
wordsj  that  the  two  books  already  ranked  as  Scripture 
when  the  Canon  of  the  Prophets  was  closed.  According 
to  this  supposition,  the  Books  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations 
were  not  transferred  to  their  place  in  the  Hagiographa 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  until  the  arrangement  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  was  finally  decided  upon  by  the  Jewish 
doctors  of  the  middle  ages.  We  hope,  however,  to  show, 
in  the  course  of  the  following  chapter,  that  there  are 
good  reasons  for  regarding  '  Ruth '  and  '  Lamentations ' 
as  having,  from  the  first,  been  completely  separate  works 
from  '  Judges  '  and  *  Jeremiah,'  and,  therefore,  as  never 
having  been  included  among  '  the  Prophets,'  except 
where  the  influence  of  the  Alexandrian  Version  may  be 
detected.  The  principle  upon  which  the  books  of  the 
Septuagint  Version  are  arranged  in  the  extant  copies  will 
fully  account  for  the  position  assigned  in  them  to  Ruth  and 
Lamentations  respectively.  No  account  is  taken  of  the 
separateness  of  the  two  groups  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
the  Prophets  and  '  the  Writings.'  Regard  is  apparently 
only  paid  to  connexion  of  subject  matter,  or  to  con- 
I  2, 


it6        the  canon  of  the  old  testament. 

Chap.  V.  siderations  of  chronological  sequence,  as  roughly  deter- 
mining  the  order  of  their  arrangement.  But  even  then 
no  uniformity  of  order  is  observed  ;  and  the  fact  of  the 
extant  MSS.  being  Christian  in  origin  deprives  their 
evidence  of  any  real  value,  when  they  are  found  in  con- 
flict, as  is  the  case  in  this  question,  with  the  uniform 
testimony  of  Jewish  tradition. 
'The  ^  With  the  recognition  of  the  Prophets  we  naturally 
in  the  syna-  associatc  their  use  in  public  worship.  Probably,  there- 
^Servtces.  ^^rc,  during  the  third  century  B.  C,  the  lesson  from  the 
Prophets  (the  HaphtaraJi)  was  added  by  the  scribes  to 
the  lesson  from  the  Law  (the  Parashah)  ^.  It  was  an 
ingenious  suggestion,  but  one  without  a  word  of  support 
from  early  literature,  and  first  made  in  all  probability  by 
Elias  Levita,  that  the  introduction  of  a  lesson  from  '  the 
Prophets '  arose  during  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  by 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  According  to  this  conjecture, 
when  Antiochus  made  the  possession  of  a  copy  of  'the 
Law '  punishable  by  the  heaviest  penalties  (i  Mace.  i. 
^"j),  it  was  necessary  to  hide  'the  rolls  of  the  Laws'; 
the  scribes,  therefore,  determined  to  select  the  Syna- 
gogue lessons  from  the  writings  of  '  the  Prophets  * 
instead  of  from  '  the  Law  ' ;  and  from  that  time  forward 
the  use  of  the  prophetic  lesson  retained  its  place  in  the 
public  services.  Unfortunately  for  this  conjecture,  no 
confirmation  of  it  has  yet  been  found  in  any  early 
testimony.  It  is  far  more  probable,  that  the  adoption 
of  a  lesson  from  '  the  Prophets '  corresponded  with  the 
period  of  their  admission  into  the  Canon  ;  and  that 
their  occasional  liturgical  usage,  having  from  time  to 
time  found  general  approval,  facilitated  their  reception 

^  Parashah  =  '  division,'   or   *  section.'       Haphtarah  =  '  conclusion '    or 
*  dismissal '  (cf.  '  Missa ').. 


THE  SECOND   CANON.  II7 

as  Scripture.  Whether  they  were  suited  for  reading  in  cmap.  v. 
the  Synagogue  services,  may  very  possibly  have  been 
the  test  which  decided  the  admission  of  a  book  into 
the  group  of  the  Nebiim.  It  is  possible  that  the 
practice  of  reading  portions  in  the  Synagogue  first 
led  to  the  idea  of  setting  apart,  as  sacred,  other  books 
besides  the  five  books  of  the  Law. 

But  the  reading  of  '  the  Prophets '  was  not  at  first 
arranged  upon  the  same  systematic  plan  as  the  reading 
from  '  the  Law,'  until  some  time  after  the  Christian  era. 
In  the  New  Testament,  we  have  mention  of  the  reading, 
in  the  Synagogues,  from  '  the  Prophets '  as  well  as  from 
'  the  Law '  (Luke  iv.  16,  17,  Acts  xiii.  15,  27) ;  but  from 
the  passage  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel  (iv.  16,  17),  we  rather 
gather  that  our  Lord  read  a  passage  from  Isaiah,  which 
He  either  selected  Himself,  or  read  in  accordance  with 
the  chance  selection  of  the  Synagogue  authorities. 

We  do  not  find,  until  several  centuries  after  the 
Christian  era,  any  mention  of  other  writings  being 
systematically  ^  read  in  the  Synagogue  besides  those 
included  in  'the  Law  and  the  Prophets,'  and  in  this 
Synagogue  tradition  we  seem  to  have  a  confirmation  of 
the  view  that  '  the  Prophets '  were  received  into  the 
Canon  before  the  Hagiographa.  Also,  in  connexion 
with  this  subject,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  Aramaic 
Paraphrases,  or  Targums,  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
are  much  earlier  in  date  than  those  which  exist  of  the 
Hagiographa ;  and  that,  while  the  Targums  of  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets  appear  to  have  been  prepared  for  the 

^  That  extracts  from  the  Hagiographa  were  from  time  to  time  read  in 
the  Synagogues,  before  the  present  Jewish  Lectionary  came  into  force,  is 
a  very  probable  supposition.  But  later  usage  favours  the  view  that  the 
reading  of  such  extracts  was  for  the  purpose  of  brief  and  informal  com- 
parison with  the  Lessons  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 


Il8  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  V.    purpose  of  public  reading,  those  of  the  Hagiographa 

seem  rather  to  have  been  intended  for  private  use. 
The  Law  Whether  or  no  a  recollection  of  the  time,  when  the 
Prophets.  Hebrew  Canon  consisted  only  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  is  preserved  in  the  frequent  use  of  the  phrase, 
*  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,'  may  be  disputed.  But  the 
possibility  of  the  explanation  may  be  acknowledged  ; 
and,  if  so,  an  illustration  of  this  earlier  stage  in  the  history 
of  the  formation  of  the  Canon  survives  in  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament  (e.  g.  Matt.  v.  17,  vii.  ii^,  xxii.  40, 
Luke  xvi.  16,  29,  31,  Acts  xiii.  15,  xxviii.  23). 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    THIRD    CANON. 

The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Writings. 

The  earliest  intimation  that  we  have  of  a  third  group  chap.  vi. 
of  writings  being  included  among  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
is  obtained  from  the  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus,  which 
was  referred  to  in  the  previous  chapter.  The  Prologue, 
as  we  saw,  was  written  in  Greek,  and  was  prefixed  to  the 
Greek  translation  of  the  '  Wisdom  of  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Sirach/  that  his  grandson  made  in  Egypt  about  the  year 
132  B.C.  Three  times  over  in  the  course  of  this  Prologue 
he  speaks  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Jews,  calling 
them  at  one  time  '  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the 
others  who  followed  after  them,'  at  another  '  The  Law 
and  the  Prophets  and  the  other  Books  of  our  Fathers,' 
at  another  '  The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Books.'  The  employment  of  these  terms  justifies  us  in 
supposing  that  the  writer  was  acquainted  with  a  recog- 
nized tripartite  division  of  Scripture.  But  the  expression, 
by  which  he  designates  the  third  group,  certainly  lacks 
definiteness.  It  does  not  warrant  us  to  maintain^  that 
'the  Writings'  or  'Kethubim  '  were  all,  in  their  completed 
form,  known  to  the  writer.  ,  What,  however,  it  does 
warrant  us  to  assert,  is  that  the  writer  fully  recognizes 
the  fact  that  other  books  could  take,  and  some  had 
already  taken,  a  '  tertiary '  rank  by  the  side  of  '  the  Law 


120 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Books, 
known  but 
not  7'e- 
garded  as 
So'tpture, 

2(K)  B.C. 


and  the  Prophets.'  He  is  addressing  himself  to  the 
Greek-speaking  Jews  of  Alexandria  ;  he  is  translating 
a  work  written  in  Hebrew  by  a  devout  Jew  of  Palestine ; 
and,  as  he  does  not  add  any  words  either  of  qualification 
or  of  explanation  to  his  mention  of  this  third  group,  we 
may  fairly  assume  that  the  beginning  of  the  formation 
of  a  third  group  of  Sacred  Books  had  been  known  for 
some  time,  and  that,  in  his  day,  it  might  be  taken  for 
granted  as  known  by  Jews  whether  in  Palestine  or  in 
Egypt. 

When  now  we  come  to  consider  the  history  of  this 
third  group,  we  cannot,  perhaps,  hope  to  determine,  with 
any  degree  of  precision,  the  origin  of  its  formation.  But 
we  can  conjecture,  with  some  show  of  probability,  what 
the  circumstances  were  that  led  to  its  commencement. 
We  may  remember  that,  at  the  time  when  the  group  of 
'  the  Prophets '  was  in  all  probability  closed,  there  existed 
among  the  Jews  an  extensive  religious  literature  outside 
the  limits  of  the  Canon.  The  author  of  Koheleth 
(Ecclesiastes),  writing  probably  in  the  third  century  B.C., 
sighs  over  the  number  of  books  and  the  weariness  of  the 
flesh  resulting  from  their  study  (Eccles.  xii.  12).  The 
great  historical  narrative  of  the  Chronicler,  comprising 
our  Books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  had  pro- 
bably been  completed  in  the  early  part  of  the  same 
century  (cf.  Neh.  xii.  11,  22)..  Perhaps  from  the  same 
period  had  come  the  Book  of  Esther.  The  Books  of 
Job  and  Proverbs  had  long  been  well  known  to  Jewish 
readers,  and  the  influence  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  in  par- 
ticular, has  left  its  mark  upon  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach. 
Large  portions  of  the  Psalter  were  doubtless  well  known, 
especially  through  the  Temple  services.  The  Book  of 
Lamentations  was  commonly  supposed   to   record  the 


THE  THIRD   CANON.  121 

elegy  of  Jeremiah  over  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  In  chap,  vi. 
the  Song  of  Songs  had  come  down  one  of  the  most  per- 
feet  specimens  of  early  Hebrew  poetry  ;  and  in  the  Book 
of  Ruth  a  charming  idyll  of  early  prose  narrative.  These 
writings,  which  are  so  well  known  to  us,  were  probably 
only  samples,  though  doubtless  the  choicest  ones,  of  an 
abundant  literature  to  which  every  Jew  at  the  end  of  the 
third  century  B.  c.  had  access. 

It  is  very  possible,  as  has  already  been  suggested,  that,  An  appen- 
at  the  close  of  the  third  century  B.C.,  some  of  the  writ-  Law  and 
ings  we  have  just  mentioned  occupied  so  conspicuous  a  ^^ophets? 
position  as  to  constitute  an   informal  appendix  to  the 
Canon  of  '  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.'     Informal  only  ; 
they   were    not    yet    admitted   to   the   full    honour   of 
Canonicity.     In  that  reservation  we  have  the  only  satis- 
factory explanation  of  the  peculiarities  which  naturally 
call  for  remark  in  '  the  tripartite  division  '  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.     Why,  it  is  asked,  are  not  the  Books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  of  Ruth,  of  Esther,  and  of  Chronicles, 
found  among  the  narrative  books  of  the  second  group  ? 
Why,  again,  are  not  the  Books  of  Lamentations  and  oi  Anomalies 
Daniel   found  among   the    prophetical   writings  of  the  7im-ltoZof 
same  Canon  ?     The  only  probable  answer  is  that  supplied  fjpfj^a. 
by  the  recognition  of  development  in  the  formation  of 
the  Hebrew  Canon.     When  the  collection,  called  by  the 
name    of   '  the    Prophets,'    was    being    completed,    the 
writings  that    we   have  just   referred   to   had  not   yet 
obtained  the  degree  of  recognition,  which  alone  could 
cause  them  to  be  regarded  as  Scripture.     When  we  ask 
ourselves  why  they   failed   to   obtain   recognition,    our 
answer  will  be  different  in  almost  every  instance.     Some 
would  be   excluded  because  in  the  treatment  of  their 
subject-matter  they  differed  so  widely  from  the  jDOoks 


124  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  a  rapidity  sufficient  to  please  him,  had  endeavoured  to 
break,  at  a   single  blow,  the  obstinacy   of  the  Jewish 
people.     The  horrors  of  his  persecution  had  been  fol- 
lowed  by   a   wild   outbreak.     The   seemingly   hopeless 
struggle  for  freedom  had  been  led  by  the  patriotic  sons 
of  Mattathias  B.C.  167  (cf.  Dan.  xi.  34).     Little  by  little, 
in   the   face   of   overwhelming   odds,   the   cause  of  the 
Jewish  patriots  had  triumphed.     First  of  all,  religious 
freedom  had  been  won  ;  then,  after  a  time,  civil  liberty 
had  been  obtained,  foreign  garrisons  w^ere  withdrawn,  the 
old  borders  restored.     Under  the  successive  High  Priest- 
jonathan     hoods  of  Jonathan  and  Simon,   the   brothers  of  Judas 
^Sinlon^xti-  Maccabeus,  it  appeared  as  if  complete  independence  had 
-^iz  B.C.        been  attained,  and  as  if  the  Jewish  people  had  once  more 
entered  upon  a  career  of  national  greatness,  united  by 
the  ties  of  devotion  to  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 
The  edict  of      It  appears  a  not  unnatural  supposition',  that  the  en- 

Antiochus        .         .  -     ,  .  - .     .  ....  ,     - 

168 B.C.:  Us  thusiasm  of  that  unique  religious  revival  originated  the 
effect.  movement,  which  sought  to  expand  the  Canon  of  the 

Hebrew  Scrip-tures  by  the  addition  of  another,  a  third, 
group  of  writings.  The  impulse  for  such  a  movement  would 
not  be  far  to  seek.  The  subtle,  but  impolitic,  command 
of  Antiochus  went  forth  to  destroy  the  copies  of  the  Jew- 
ish Law  (i  Mace.  i.  ^6^  ^j  ^).  He  divined  their  influence, 
but  he  misjudged  his  power  to  annihilate  it.  His  order  en- 
hanced, in  the  eyes  of  the  patriot  Jews,  the  value  of  the 
treasure  which  they  possessed  in  their  national  writings. 
The  destruction  of  books  of  the  law  would  probably  be 

I  Mace.  i.  56,  57,  'And  when  they  had  rent  in  pieces  the  books  of  the 
law  which  they  found,  they  burnt  them  with  fire.  And  wheresoever  was 
found  with  any  the  book  of  the  testament  {better,  covenant),  or  if  any 
consented  to  the  law,  the  king's  commandment  was,  that  they  should  put 
him  to  death'  (A.  V.).  Ci.Jos.  Aiit.  xi.  5,  4,  ri<^avi^iTO  5e  ef  ttou  ^i0\os 
evpfdfir)  iepd  Kal  vofws. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  125 

accompanied  by  the  indiscriminate  destruction  of  any  chap.  vr. 
other  ancient  and  carefully-cherished  Hebrew  writings. 
On  whatsoever  documents  the  ignorant  and  brutal 
soldiery  of  Antiochus  could  lay  hands,  they  would  treat 
all  alike  as  '  copies  of  the  law '  in  order  to  gain  the  reward 
of  their  destruction.  The  pillage  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
profanation  of  the  Temple  by  the  Syrian  army  must 
have  occasioned  the  loss  of  many  a  precious  literary  relic 
of  the  past,  which  might  otherwise  have  come  down 
to  us.  But  the  persecution  of  Antiochus,  like  that  of 
Diocletian  303  A.D.,  only  succeeded  in  revealing  to  the 
possessors  of  Scripture  the  priceless  character  of  their 
heritage.  The  blow  of  the  persecutor  ensured  the 
preservation  of  the  Sacred  Books.  The  power  and 
sanctity  of  Scripture  were  realised,  when  it  was  seen  that 
the  arch-enemy  of  the  nation  sought  to  destroy  the 
religion  of  the  Jews  by  destroying  their  books. 

Amid  the  general  revival  of  religion,  of  which  the 
renewal  of  the  Temple  services  and  the  restoration  of  the 
Temple  fabric  would  be  the  most  conspicuous  signs,  we 
may  be  sure,  that  a  heightened  veneration  for  the  national 
Scriptures  played  a  significant  and  an  important  part. 
It  is,  therefore,  with  feelings  of  special  interest  that  we 
come  upon  the  traces  of  a  tradition  which  connected  a 
movement,  undertaken  for  the  recovery,  collection,  and 
preservation  of  ancient  Jewish  writings,  with  the  great 
name  of  Judas,  the  Maccabee.  The  tradition  is  to  h^  Animport- 
found  in  the  same  spurious  letter  prefixed  to  the  Second  "'uonT2 ' 
Book  of  Maccabees  that  we  had  occasion  to  mention  in  ^'^^^-  ''•  ^> 
the  last  chapter.  The  passage  runs  as  follows  :  '  And  in 
like  manner  Judas  also  gathered  together  for  us  all  those 
writings  that  had  been  scattered  by  reason  of  the  war 
that  we  had  ;  and  they  remain  with  us  '  (%  Mace.  ii.  14). 


124  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  a  rapidity  sufficient  to  please  him,  had  endeavoured  to 
break,  at  a  single  blow,  the  obstinacy  of  the  Jewish 
people.  The  horrors  of  his  persecution  had  been  fol- 
lowed by  a  wild  outbreak.  The  seemingly  hopeless 
struggle  for  freedom  had  been  led  by  the  patriotic  sons 
of  Mattathias  B.C.  167  (cf.  Dan.  xi.  34).  Little  by  little, 
in  the  face  of  overwhelming  odds,  the  cause  of  the 
Jewish  patriots  had  triumphed.  First  of  all,  religious 
freedom  had  been  won  ;  then,  after  a  time,  civil  liberty 
had  been  obtained,  foreign  garrisons  were  withdrawn,  the 
old  borders  restored.  Under  the  successive  High  Priest- 
jonathan  hoods  of  Jonathan  and  Simon,  the  brothers  of  Judas 
\}mon^^^-  Maccabeus,  it  appeared  as  if  complete  independence  had 
135  B.C.  been  attained,  and  as  if  the  Jewish  people  had  once  more 
entered  upon  a  career  of  national  greatness,  united  by 
the  ties  of  devotion  to  the  religion  of  Jehovah. 
The  edict  of  It  appears  a  not  unnatural  supposition',  that  the  en- 
168  B.C. :  its  thusiasm  of  that  unique  religious  revival  originated  the 
movement,  which  sought  to  expand  the  Canon  of  the 
Hebrew  Scrip-tures  by  the  addition  of  another,  a  thirds 
group  of  writings.  The  impulse  for  such  a  movement  would 
not  be  far  to  seek.  The  subtle,  but  impolitic,  command 
of  Antiochus  went  forth  to  destroy  the  copies  of  the  Jew- 
ish Law  (i  Mace.  i.  ^6^  ^j  ^).  He  divined  their  influence, 
but  he  misjudged  his  power  to  annihilate  it.  His  order  en- 
hancedj  in  the  eyes  of  the  patriot  Jews,  the  value  of  the 
treasure  which  they  possessed  in  their  national  writings. 
The  destruction  of  books  of  the  law  would  probably  be 

I  Mace.  i.  56,  57,  'And  when  they  had  rent  in  pieces  the  books  of  the 
law  which  they  found,  they  burnt  them  with  fire.  And  wheresoever  was 
found  with  any  the  book  of  the  testament  {better,  covenant),  or  if  any 
consented  to  the  law,  the  king's  commandment  was,  that  they  should  put 
him  to  death'  (A.  V.).  Qi.Jos.  Ant.  xi.  5,  4,  rj(pavi^€To  5e  ei'  irov  ^i^Kos 
evpfdcit]  iepd  Kal  vofxos. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  1^5 

accompanied  by  the  indiscriminate  destruction  of  any  chap.  vi. 
other  ancient  and  carefully-cherished  Hebrew  writings. 
On  whatsoever  documents  the  ignorant  and  brutal 
soldiery  of  Antiochus  could  lay  hands,  they  would  treat 
all  alike  as  '  copies  of  the  law '  in  order  to  gain  the  reward 
of  their  destruction.  The  pillage  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
profanation  of  the  Temple  by  the  Syrian  army  must 
have  occasioned  the  loss  of  many  a  precious  literary  relic 
of  the  past,  which  might  otherwise  have  come  down 
to  us.  But  the  persecution  of  Antiochus,  like  that  of 
Diocletian  303  A.D.,  only  succeeded  in  revealing  to  the 
possessors  of  Scripture  the  priceless  character  of  their 
heritage.  The  blow  of  the  persecutor  ensured  the 
preservation  of  the  Sacred  Books.  The  power  and 
sanctity  of  Scripture  were  realised,  when  it  was  seen  that 
the  arch-enemy  of  the  nation  sought  to  destroy  the 
religion  of  the  Jews  by  destroying  their  books. 

Amid  the  general  revival  of  religion,  of  which  the 
renewal  of  the  Temple  services  and  the  restoration  of  the 
Temple  fabric  would  be  the  most  conspicuous  signs,  we 
may  be  sure,  that  a  heightened  veneration  for  the  national 
Scriptures  played  a  significant  and  an  important  part. 
It  is,  therefore,  with  feelings  of  special  interest  that  we 
come  upon  the  traces  of  a  tradition  which  connected  a 
movement,  undertaken  for  the  recovery,  collection,  and 
preservation  of  ancient  Jewish  writings,  with  the  great 
name  of  Judas,  the  Maccabee.  The  tradition  is  to  h^  Animport- 
found  in  the  same  spurious  letter  prefixed  to  the  Second  ^^ZnTt' 
Book  of  Maccabees  that  we  had  occasion  to  mention  in  ^'^^'^-  ''•  ^^• 
the  last  chapter.  The  passage  runs  as  follows  :  '  And  in 
like  manner  Judas  also  gathered  together  for  us  all  those 
writings  that  had  been  scattered  by  reason  of  the  war 
that  we  had  ;  and  they  remain  with  us '  {%  Mace.  ii.  14). 


126  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  The  spurlous  character  of  the  Epistle,  in  which  the  pas- 
sage occurs,  makes  it,  of  course,  impossible  for  us  to 
put  implicit  confidence  in  its  statements.  But  its  refer- 
ences to  the  Maccabean  age  are,  by  comparison  with 
its  mention  of  Nehemiah,  proportionately  more  trust- 
worthy, as  the  writer  may  be  presumed  to  rely  upon 
a  more  nearly  contemporary  source  of  information. 
Judas  was  a  man,  not  of  letters,  but  of  action  ;  and 
his  death  followed  shortly  after  his  greatest  victory 
(i6i  B.C.).  Probably,  therefore,  if  a  movement  for  the 
preservation  of  ancient  Hebrew  writings  was  set  on  foot 
at  this  time,  it  was  only  by  later  popular  legend  imper- 
sonated in  the  name  of  the  great  hero,  with  whom  the 
war  of  Jewish  independence,  and  everything  connected 
with  it,  were  apt  to  be  identified.  Among  the  writings 
'  that  had  been  scattered  by  reason  of  the  war,'  we  may 
well  imagine  that  the  majority  of  the  '  Kethubim  '  are  to 
be  included.  At  this,  as  at  the  other  stages  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  Canon,  the  process  of  collection  and  of 
reverent  preservation  is  preliminary  to  that  of  admission 
within  the  sacred  limits.  The  religious  leaders  of  the 
patriotic  party  were  not  likely  to  delay  long.  In  raising 
to  the  dignity  of  Holy  Scripture  writings  which  had  thus 
escaped  destruction,  they  would  make  a  selection  of  those 
which  had  exerted  the  greatest  influence  over  the  spirit 
of  the  devout  Jews  during  the  time  both  of  the  great 
national  rising  and  of  the  humiliation  which  preceded  it. 
To  invest  them  with  the  rank  of  Canonical  Scripture 
would  be  the  best  means  of  ensuring  their  preservation 
and  of  perpetuating  their  spiritual  ascendancy.  It  en- 
trusted them  to  the  special  charge  of  official  scribes  ; 
it  enlisted  the  whole  nation  in  their  protection  and 
veneration. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  1 27 

When,  however,  was  the  first  step  taken  ?  It  is,  per-  chap.  vi. 
haps,  only  a  conjecture  ;  but  when  we  remember  that  the 
recognition  of,  at  least,  some  portion  of  the  '  Kethubim  ' 
is  referred  to  in  a  writing  not  much  later  than  132  B.  C. 
[Prol.  Eccliis.),  we  can  hardly  place  it  later  in  the  century 
than  the  important  epoch  of  the  revival  under  Jonathan 
and  Simon,  who  in  turn  succeeded  to  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Patriotic  party,  after  the  death  of  Judas 
(161-135  B.C.). 

The  Psalter  is  the  most  important  book  of  the  '  Kethu-  ThePsaiter. 
bim,'  at  the  head  of  which  it  stands  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles. 
We  have  little  doubt  that  the  Psalter  was  the  first  book 
in  the  third  group  to  obtain  admission  to  the  rank  of 
Scripture.  The  Psalter  had  hitherto  been  used  as  the 
service  book  of  the  Temple  singers  ^.  Henceforward  it 
was  to  become  the  hymn  book  of  Israel.  Whereas  it 
had  been  the  sacred  book  of  poetry  for  the  priests  and 
Levites,  it  was  now  to  minister  to  the  spiritual  thought 
of  the  whole  nation.  Its  final  revision,  which  probably 
immediately  preceded  its  admission  into  the  rank  of 
Scripture,  was  subsequent  to  the  persecution  of  Antio- 
chus — if  it  be  true,  as  is  very  generally  supposed, 
that  the  influence  of  the  Maccabean  era  is  to  be  traced  in 
Psalms  xliv,  Ixxiv,  Ixxix,  if  not  in  others  to  which  critics 
have  assigned  a  similar  late  date.  The  time  of  its  final 
promulgation  in  its  present  form  and  of  its  first  recogni- 
tion as  part  of  the  people's  Scriptures,  may  well  have 
been  that  of  the  great  religious  revival  that  accom- 
panied the  success  of  the  Maccabean  revolt,  and  the 
downfall  of  the  Hellenizing  party  among  the  Priests 
and  nobles. 

^  For  the  use  of  the  Psalter  in  the  Temple  services  cf.  the  Titles  of  Pss» 
xxiv,  xlviii,  xciii,  xciv,  in  the  Septuagint  Version. 


i6. 


128  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap  VI.  The  influence  of  the  Psalter  as  a  book  of  Scripture 
Quoted  as  soon  made  itself  felt.  Accordingly,  whereas  it  is  doubt- 
flitcTvi.  f"l  whether  the  Psalter  is  ever  directly  quoted  by 
the  son  of  Sirach,  it  is  noticeable  that  in  the  First  of 
Maccabees,  a  book -written  at  the  close  of  the  same 
century,  a  quotation  from  the  Psalter  occurs,  which  is 
introduced  with  the  formula  of  citation  from  Scripture 
(i  Mace.  vii.  16  ;  cf.  Psalm  Ixxix.  2,  3).  It  is  not  for  a 
moment  denied  that  collections  of  Psalms  had  been  in 
existence,  and  had  been  commonly  known  and  used,  long 
before.  Of  this  we  may  be  satisfied  without  stretching 
the  interpretation  of  'the  Books  (or  things)  of  David' 
(2  Mace.  ii.  13),  which  Nehemiah  is  said  to  have  col- 
lected, so  as  to  make  it  mean  necessarily  the  Psalms  of 
our  Psalter. 

The  Chronicler  makes  free  extracts  from  Psalms, 
mingling  them  together  (i  Chron.  xvi.  8-36);  but  he  gives 
no  sign  of  taking  them  from  a  sacred  collection. 

Evidence,  to  show  that  the  Psalter  had  been  finally 
compiled,  or  was  treated  as  authoritative  Scripture,  is 
lacking  before  the  Maccabean  era.  After  that  epoch, 
the  evidence  is  forthcoming.  May  we  not  suppose,  that 
its  use  by  the  devout  and  patriot  Jews,  during  the  three 
or  four  years,  when  the  Temple  worship  was  suspended 
(168-165),  led  to  its  general  recognition  immediately 
afterwards?  Withdrawn  from  special  priestly  usage,  it 
became  at  once  the  people's  book  of  devotion. 

An  argument  which  has  sometimes  been  brought 
forward  in  order  to  prove  that  the  Psalter  had  been 
current  in  a  completed  form  before  the  Maccabean 
era  is  based  upon  i  Chron.  xvi.  ^fi.  It  is  alleged  that 
the  Chronicler  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Psalter    in    its    division    into    five   books,   in  order  to 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  1 29 

quote   the   doxology   that   concludes   the   cvi*^   Psalm,   chap.  vi. 

The   argument,   however,    is   not    so   convincing  as   it 

would  appear  to  be  at  first  sight.      On  the  one  hand, 

it   is   maintained    by   some,   that   the   doxologies    that 

appear  at  the  close  of  the  Books  of  Psalms  were  not,  as 

the  above-mentioned  argument  would  pre-suppose,  added 

at  the  time  when  the  Psalter  was  finally  edited  ;    but 

that  those  Psalms  were  selected  to  conclude  the  various 

books   of   the    Psalter    which    happened   to    terminate 

with  a  suitable  doxology.     On  the  other  hand,  Professor  i  chron. 

Cheyne  suggests,  *  it  is   not  certain    that   any  part   of  *^*"  ^  ' 

Psalm  cvi.  is  quoted  in  i  Chron.  xvi ;  vv.  34-36*  consist 

of  liturgical  formulae  which  were   no  more  composed 

solely  for  use  in  Psalm  cvi.  than  the  doxology  attached 

to  the  Lord's  Prayer  was  originally  formulated  solely 

to  occupy  its  present  position.      It  is  highly  probable 

that  a  doxology  was  uttered  by  the  congregation  at  the 

close  of  every  Psalm  used  in  the  Temple  service,  and 

there  is  no  reason  why  not  only  the  doxology  in  verse  '>fi^ 

but  the  two   preceding  verses,  should   not   have    been 

attached  by  the  Chronicler  to  the  Psalm  which  he  had 

made  up  simply  as  liturgical  formulae '  (Cheyne's  Origin 

of  the  Psalter^  p.  457).     The  division  of  the  Psalter  into 

five  books  was  more  or  less  arbitrary.  The  compiler  adds 

to  the  concluding  Psalms  of  the  first  four  books  (xli,  Ixxii, 

Ixxxix,  cvi)  a  liturgical  formula.     The  formula  in  Ps.  cvi. 

46  differs  from  the  others,  and    its  concluding  verse  is 

longer  by  one  clause  than  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Chron. 

The  Chronicler  would  have  had  no  object  in  omitting 

it.     But  the  editor  of  the  Psalter  may  have    adapted 

the    new   words   from    the    text   of   the    Chronicler    in 

I  Chron.  xvi.  36^ 

If  now  it  be  asked  what  other  books  were  admitted 
K 


I30 


THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


-pitted  and 
disputed. 


Chap.  VI.  into  the  Canon  at  or  about  the  same  time  as  the  Psalter, 
Books undis-  we  should  reply,  although  with  the  reserve  due  to  the 
necessary  element  of  conjecture  in  our  reply,  Proverbs,  Job, 
Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and,  very  pos- 
sibly, the  Book  of  Daniel.  With  respect  to  the  Books  of 
Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Esther,  and  Chronicles,  there 
are  grounds  for  supposing  that,  in  their  case,  admission 
was  more  tardy.  At  least,  it  is  natural  to  surmise  that 
object  ions,  which  were  felt  and  expressed  in  later  days, 
to  the  retention  of  some  of  these  books  within  the  Canon, 
very  possibly  reflect  something  of  the  hesitation  that 
preceded  their  acceptance  as  Scripture.  There  are  also 
other  reasons,  which  I  shall  shortly  mention,  that  make 
it  unlikely  that  these  four  books  were  admitted  at  the 
earliest  possible  opportunity.  They  constitute  what  we 
may  venture  to  call  the  '  Antiiegomena '  of  the  Old 
Testament.  They  are  the  *  disputed '  books  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon. 

A  few  words  are  here  necessary  upon  each  of  the 
books  included  in  this  last  group  of  the  Canonical 
writings.  We  shall  be  able  to  gather  from  our  enquiry 
something  of  the  nature  of  the  writings  themselves,  and 
therefore  judge  better  of  the  principles  upon  which  they 
were  adrrritted.     The  Psalter  has  been  already  noticed. 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  is  a  clear  instance  of  a  work 
that  has  been  gradually  compiled.  From  the  title  of 
chapter  xxv  we  gather  that  the  group  of  proverbs  col- 
lected in  chapt-ers  xxv-xxix,  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah, 
was  added  when  one,  if  not  both,  of  the  other  main 
groups  already  existed  (chaps,  i-ix,  x-xxiv).  Unfortu- 
nately, the  date  at  which  the  collection,  made  by  the 
men  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  was  thus  appended  has  not  been 
told  us  ;   but  it  is  evident  that  to  this  combined  work 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  I3I 

I  were  also  added,  at  a  much  later  time,  the  concluding  chap.  vi. 
[groups  of  proverbs  (chaps,  xxx  and  xxxi.  1-9,  10-31). 
I  Three  or  four  stages  are  thus  clearly  revealed  by  the 
tstructure  of  the  compilation.     The  latter  groups,  form- 
ring  a  sort   of  appendix,  were    probably   added  at  the  * 
Itime  when  the  whole  book  was  issued   in   its    present 
tliterary  form,  very  probably  not  earlier  than  the  fourth 
tcentury  B.  c.      Its  moral  strength,  the   brightness   and 
ivariety  of  its  maxims,  the  antiquity  of  its  contents,  and 
tthe  name  of  Solomon  associated  with  the  authorship  of 
fe  earlier  portion,  combined  to  place  it  in  the  highest 
irepute^.      A  book,   however,  which   was   so   evidently 
Icompiled    for   purposes  of  private  religious   edification 
land   so   little  adapted  for  purposes  of  public  reading, 
Fwould    have    had    no    appropriate    place    among  '  the 
Prophets,'  the  group  which,  as  we  have  seen,  seems  to  have 
been  intended  especially  for  public  reading  in  the  syna- 
gogues.    But  the  Book  of  Proverbs  would  be  among  the 
first  to  receive  recognition  in  the  formation  of  a  more 
miscellaneous  group  of  religious  writings.     The  practical 
philosophy   of   Jewish   wisdom   {Kkokmah)  was   by   it 
represented  in  the  Hebrew  Canon. 

The  Book  of  Job,  which  was,  in  all  probability,  com-  Job.  * 
posed  during  the  period  of  the  exile,  belongs  to  a  vein 
of  religious  thought  which,  as  may  be  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  Job  with  the  contents  of  Isaiah  xl- 
Ixvi,  seems  to  have  exercised  a  profound  influence 
upon  the  religious  conceptions  of  that  epoch.  Ob- 
viously of  a  very  different  class  of  writing  from  the 
Prophets,  it  was  not  likely  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Canon  until  the  formation  of  the  '  Kethubim  '  allowed 

^  Its  influence  has  left  a  strongly  marked  impression  upon  the  Wisdom 
of  Sirach.     Cf.  Montefiore  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review ^  1 890,  p.  490. 
K  1 


132     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

room  for  poetical  and  philosophical  writings.  The  group 
of  '  the  Prophets '  had  been  occupied  with  the  considera- 
tion of  national  events  and  the  national  religion.  The 
Book  of  Job  appeared  to  deal  with  the  troubles  of  in- 
dividual experience.  From  the  earhest  times  it  was 
undoubtedly  treated  by  the  Jews  as  a  strictly  historical 
work  (cf.  Davidson's  Job,  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools, 
p.  xiii).  Whether  a  work  of  biography  or  imagination, 
the  Book  of  Job  supplied  a  new  element  in  the  discussion 
of  one  of  the  great  problems  of  life,  viewed  from  the 
aspect  of  individual  consciousness.  It  dealt  with  specu- 
lative questions.  It  had  no  fitting  place  in  the  Canon 
save  in  the  mixed  group  of  '  the  Kethubim.' 

The  Book  of  Ruth,  in  its  simplicity  and  picturesque- 
ness,  is  one  of  the  most  attractive  writings  that  have 
come  down  to  us  from  the  pre-exilic  literature.  The 
pedigree  of  David  (Ruth  iv.  18-22)  was  probably  ap- 
pended long  after  its  original  composition,  but  may 
possibly  have  facilitated  the  admission  of  the  little  book 
into  the  Canon,  either  along  with,  or  soon  after,  the 
Psalter  with  which  the  name  of  David  was  inseparably 
associated.  In  connexion  with  this  suggestion,  it  is 
noticeable  that  in  the  Talmudic  order  [Baba  Bathra,  14b) 
the  Book  of  Ruth  stands  immediately  before  the  Psalter, 
the  book  of  David's  genealogy  preceding  the  book  of 
his  Psalms.     (See  Chapter  XII.) 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  by  some  scholars 
the  Book  of  Ruth  is  considered  to  have  originally  formed 
part  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  In  support  of  their  view, 
they  appeal  to  the  traditional  position  of  the  book  in 
the  Septuagint  version,  and  to  the  statements  of  Jerome 
respecting  the  Hebrew  custom  of  his  day.  But  Jerome's 
opinion  in  the  matter  adds  nothing,  as  we  shall  see  later  on, 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  133 

tto  the  evidence  of  the  Septuagint ;  while  the  arrangement  chap.  vi. 
I  of  the   books  in  the   Septuagint  version,  according  to 
I  subject-matter,  deprives  the  juxtaposition  of  Ruth  to 
Ijudges  of  any  real  significance.     With  this  exception, 
ithe  Hebrew  tradition  is  uniform,  that  the  book  belonged, 
tfrom  the  first,  to  '  the  Kethubim.'     And  this  is  what  we 
[should  gather  from  a  comparison  of  the  style  and  con- 
I  tents  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  with  the  concluding  chapters 
[>f  the  Book  of  Judges.  The  quiet  idyllic  picture  which  it 
fgives  of  Palestine  stands  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  wild 
^scenes  of  disorder  described  in  Judges  xvii-xxi.    Nor  can 
we  ignore  the  thought,  that  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  which 
deals  for  the  most  part  with  events  of  national  interest 
and  political  importance,  transacted  also   generally  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  country,  we  should  not  expect 
to  find  a  quiet  domestic  tale,  of  which  the  scene  is  laid 
at  Bethlehem^  a  town  of  Judah.     Ruth  has  more  resem- 
blance to  Samuel  than  to  Judges. 

The  Book  of  Lamentations  has  occasioned  a  ^imAdx  Lamenta- 
difficulty.  In  the  Septuagint  version,  it  has  a  place 
immediately  after  Jeremiah,  and  a  preface  is  prefixed  to 
it  stating  that  it  is  the  composition  of  Jeremiah.  Jerome 
affirms  that  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  'Lamentations'  was 
reckoned  with  Jeremiah  among  'the  Prophets.'  The 
tradition  of  Jeremiah's  authorship,  commonly  current 
among  Jews  and  Christians  alike,  would  be  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  position  of  the  book  in  the  Septuagint 
version,  and  for  the  tradition  that  it  once  had  a  place 
amongst  the  '  Prophets.'  Leaving  out  of  the  question 
the  matter  of  authorship,  which  is  very  far  from  being 
certainly  ascertained,  it  will  be  sufficient  here  to  point 
out  the  improbability  that  the  Book  of  Jeremiah,  which 
closes    with    the    historical    narrative    of   chapter    lii, 


134  THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  evcr  had  a  poetical  section  appended  to  it.  If  it 
be  objected  that  the  writings  of  Isaiah  furnish  an  exact 
parallel,  the  concluding  section  (Isaiah  xl-lxvi)  hav- 
ing been  appended  to  the  historical  narrative  (xxxvi- 
xxxix)  which  concludes  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  I, 
we  may  reply  that  the  analogy  is  a  misleading  one. 
There  is  all  the  difference  in  the  w^orld  between  a  long 
prophetical  section  like  Isaiah  xl-lxvi  and  the  little 
group  of  poems,  some  of  them  containing  acrostic 
poetry,  comprised  in  the  Book  of  Lamentations.  Such 
poetry  partook  little  of  the  character  of  writing 
adapted  for  inclusion  among  '  the  Prophets ' ;  Isaiah 
xl-lxvi  seemed  exactly  to  coincide  with  it.  If,  again, 
'  Lamentations '  had  been  appended  to  the  writings  of  the 
prophet  at  or  before  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
second  Canonical  group,  I  can  see  no  sufficient  reason 
for  its  separation  at  a  later  time,  nor  any  likelihood 
that  Jewish  scribes  would  have  permitted  so  innovating 
a  change.  It  is  more  natural,  I  believe,  to  suppose 
that  the  poetical  character  of  the  work,  which  excJlJrded 
it  from  'the  Prophets,'  caused  it  to  be  introduced,  at 
the  same  time  with  the  Psalter  and  with  Job,  among  the 
miscellaneous  books  of  '  the  Kethubim.' 

Ezra  and         Thc  Books  'EzTu'  uiid  '  NeJiemiaJi'  form  one  work  in 

Nchemiah. 

the  Hebrew  manuscripts  ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  they  were  not  only  originally  united,  but 
that  they  originally  formed  the  concluding  portion  of 
the  Books  of  Chronicles.  The  fact  of  their  having  been 
separated  from  the  Books  of  Chronicles  and  of  their 
occupying  a  position,  in  the  traditional  order  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  in  front  of,  instead  of,  as  we  should 
expect  from  chronological  reasons,  after,  the  Books  of 
Chronicles,  is  at  first  sight  a  strange  circumstance^  and 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  135 

difficult  to  account  for.  But  it  receives  a  .satisfactory  chap.  vi. 
explanation  from  the  probable  history  of  their  admis- 
sion into  the  Canon.  The  narrative  contained  in  ^the 
Prophets'  had  closed  with  the  middle  of  the  exile 
(2  Kings  XXV.  27).  We  may  well  fancy  how  essential 
\  it  would  seem,  that  some  record  of  the  return  from  the 
■  exile,  of  the  restoration  of  the  Temple,  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  city  walls,  of  the  first  reading  of  '  the  Law,'  should 
be  included  in  the  writings  of  the  Jewish.  Scriptures. 
The  latter  portion  of  the  Chronicler's  work,  which  seems 
to  have  been  compiled  not  earlier  than  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  B.C.,  offered  just  what  was  required. 
If  now  we  adopt  the  conjecture,  that  a  portion,  identical 
with  our  books,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  was  separately 
admitted  into  the  Canon,  and  that,  at  some  later  time, 
the  remaining  portion,  i.e.  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  re- 
ceived similar  recognition,  we  are  able  to  reconcile  the 
phenomena  of  the  identity  of  style  and  structure  (cf. 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  23,  Ezra  i.  1-3)  with  the  difficulty 
presented,  at  first  sight,  by  the  position  assigned  to  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  separate  from  and  yet  in  front  of  Chron- 
icles. That  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  had  already  been  detached 
from  the  Chronicles  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach 
(b.  C.  1 80),  is  certainly  possible,  and  is,  perhaps,  favoured 
by  the  reference  made  to  the  name  of  Nehemiah  in  Ecclus. 
xlix.  13  (cf  Neh.  vii.  1).  The  allusion  in  the  same  pas- 
sage to  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  is  probably  derived  from 
HaggaiandZechariah(Hag.  i.  12, 34,  ii.  2, 4,  21,23;  Zech. 
iii.  1-9),  and  is  therefore  inapplicable  for  this  argument. 

T/ie  Book  of  Daniel.     The  present  is  not  the  place  to  Daniel. 
enter  into  details  of  the  thorny  controversy  respecting 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.     For 
our  purpose,  however,  it  is  important  to  call  attention 


136  THE   CANON   OF   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  to  One  point.  We  may  put  it  in  the  form  of  a  question. 
Supposing  that  so  remarkable  a  work,  dealing  in  a 
spirit  of  prophecy  with  the  destiny  of  the  great  empires 
of  the  world,  had  been  well  known  to  the  Jews  at  the 
time  that  the  group  of '  the  Prophets '  was  formed,  is  it 
probable  that  it  would  have  failed  to  receive  a  place  in 
that  portion  of  the  Canon  ?  It  is,  I  believe,  most  im- 
probable. The  inference  is  obvious.  Either  the  book 
was  not  known  at  the  conclusion  of  the  third  century 
B.  c. ;  or  it  had  not  yet  been  compiled.  Of  the  two 
alternatives,  the  former,  I  confess,  seems  to  me  the 
more  improbable  ;  the  latter  has  a  good  deal  to  be  said 
in  its  favour,  (a)  It  would  be  difficult  to  suppose  that 
a  book  of  such  importance  could  remain  in  obscurity. 
(d)  The  character  of  the  Hebrew  in  which  it  is  written 
favours  the  hypothesis  of  a  late  date,  (c)  The  absence 
of  any  reference  by  the  son  of  Sirach  to  Daniel,  in  his 
list  of  the  '  famous  men,'  would  be  most  surprising,  sup- 
posing that  he  had  been  acquainted  with  our  Book  of 
Daniel.  In  a  somewhat  similar  list,  enumerating  the 
heroes  of  the  Jewish  race,  which  occurs  in  a  book  com- 
posed less  than  a  century  later,  we  find  allusion  made 
both  to  the  Three  Children  and  to  Daniel  in  the  den 
of  lions  (cf.  I  Mace.  ii.  59,  60).  (d)  To  some  readers  a  yet 
more  convincing  proof  of  the  date  of  composition  is 
afforded  by  the  contents  of  chaps,  viii,  ix,  xi,  in  which  the 
incidents  described  evidently  correspond  with  details  of 
history,  politics,  movements  of  armies,  treaties,  and  royal 
marriages,  that  belong,  during  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century  B.C.,  to  the  mutual  relations  of  Syria,  Egypt,  and 
Palestine.  Judging  by  analogy,  such  detailed  descrip- 
tion has  less  resemblance  to  the  style  of  prediction  of 
the  future  than  to  that  of  the  apocalyptic  narration  of 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  137 

the  past,  (e)  It  may  also  be  noted,  that  while  no  quota-  Chap.  vi. 
tion  from,  or  allusion  to,  the  book  occurs  in  writings  of 
an  earlier  date  than  the  Maccabean  era,  references  to  it 
are  frequent  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century  B.  C. 
The  oldest  portion  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles  (iii.  396-400), 
written  possibly  about  130  B.C.,  shows  acquaintance  with 
it.  Its  contents  are  referred  to  by  the  author  of  i  Macca- 
bees (i.  54,  ii.  59,  60) ;  and  the  rise  of  Jewish  apocalyptic 
literature,  which  was  so  largely  coloured  by  imitation 
of  Daniel,  has  never  been  attributed  to  a  date  earlier 
than  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century  B.  C.  But 
whatever  conclusion  be  come  to  upon  the  question  of 
its  date,  its  admission  to  the  Canon  was  evidently  not 
long  delayed  after  the  commencement  of  the  formation 
of  the  Kethubim  groups. 

That  the  remaining  books,  which  I  have  called  the  'Anuugo- 
'  Antilegqmena  '  of  'the  Kethubim,'  were  admitted  with  ^'^^'^' 
great  hesitation,  and  after  considerable  delay,  and  that, 
even  after  their  admission  to  Canonical  rank,  they  were, 
for  a  long  time,  viewed  with  suspicion  and  but  little  used, 
seems  to  be  a  natural  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the 
dearth  of  reference  to  them  in  the  Jewish  literature  of 
the  next  two  centuries  (100  B.c.-ioo  A.D.),  and  from  the 
rumours  of  opposition,  more  especially  to  the  Song  of 
Songs,  Esther,  and  Ecclesiastes,  of  which  we  find  echoes 
in  later  Hebrew  tradition. 

The  Song  of  Songs  is  derived  from  the  best  period  oiTheSongof 
Hebrew  literature.     At  a  time  when  the  poetry  of  the    °^^^' 
Psalms^  Job,  and  Lamentations  was  being  received  into 

^  The  dependence  of  the  first  portion  of  Baruch  (i-iii.  8)  upon  Daniel 
(chap,  ix)  is  clearly  shown  by  Baruch  i.  15,  16, 17,  21,  ii.  1,  9,  11,  19.  But 
the  composition  or  re-edition  of  Baruch  (i)  belongs  to  a  much  later  date  than 
that  traditionally  assigned  to  it:  cf.  Schiirer,  Gesch.  des  Jiid.  Volks,  2*^'"  Theil, 
p.  721,  and  Psabns  of  Solomon  (ed.  Ryle  and  James),  pp.  Ixxii-lxxvii. 


138  THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

the  sacred  Canon,  it  would  have  been  natural  to  include 
so  exquisite  a  poem,  which  was  popularly  ascribed  to 
Solomonic  authorship.  Having  once  been  admitted, 
however,  grave  objections  seem  to  have  been  raised 
against  it.  Jewish  scholars  were  perplexed  by  the  diffi- 
culty of  discovering  a  suitable  interpretation  to  its  seem- 
ingly secular  theme.  Allusions  to  the  book  are  not 
found  in  literature  before  the  Christian  era.  It  is  in- 
cluded in  the  list  of  Hebrew  Scriptures  recorded  by 
Melito  (170  A.  D.).  According  to  Jewish  tradition,  its 
Canonicity  formed  the  subject  of  discussion  among  the 
Jewish  doctors  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  A.  D.^ 

Ecclesiastes,  which  had  been  written  probably  in  the 
third  cent.  B.  C,  contained  much  that  must  have  sounded 
strangely  in  the  ears  of  Jews,  much  that,  we  know,  gave 
offence  to  some  readers.  But  its  inclusion  in  the  Canon 
had  very  probably  taken  place,  before  these  objections 
were  fully  realised.  The  name  of  Solomon  had  possibly 
contributed  to  its  admission  into  the  group,  which  already 
included  the  Proverbs  and  the  Song  of  Songs.  Its  place 
in  the  Canon  represents  one  phase  of  the  spirit  of  Jewish 
wisdom,  or  Khokmah,  in  an  age  of  intellectual  questioning. 
As  we  shall  see,  its  methods  of  dealing  with  the  problems 
of  life  gave  rise  to  grave  doubts  among  the  Jews,  as  to 
whether  its  statements  could  be  reconciled  with  the 
'  Law',  and,  therefore,  whether  it  could  be  retained  within 
the  Canon.  But  it  is  everywhere  implied  in  these  dis- 
cussions, that  the  book  was  already  in  the  number  of  the 
Scriptures,  and,  according  to  a  Talmudic  story  2,  it  was 

^  See  Chap.  ix. 

2  See  Jer.  Berakoth,  Chap.  vii.  2  (fol.  11*'),  'The  king  (Jannaeus)  said 
to  him,  "why  didst  thou  mock  me  by  saying  that  900  sacrifices  were  re- 
quired, when  the  half  would  have  sufficed?"     '*I  did  not  mock  thee/' 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  '  139 

quoted  as  Scripture  by  Simon  ben  Shetach  in  the  reign  chap.  vi. 
of  Alexander  Jannaeus  (B.C.  105-79).  Along  with  the 
Song  of  Songs,  its  canonicity,  according  to  Jewish 
tradition,  was  discussed  and  ratified  at  the  Council 
of  Jamnia  (90  and  118  A.D.).  See  Cheyne,  Job  and 
Solomon^  pp.  279  seq. 

The  Book  of  Esther^  the  composition  of  which  may  Esther. 
very  probably  be  assigned  to  the  third  century  B.C., 
became  in  later  days  one  of  the  most  popular  writings 
of  the  Kethubim.  But  its  admission  to  the  Canon  was 
either  so  long  delayed,  or  was  afterwards,  for  some 
reason,  regarded  with  such  disfavour,  that  in  some  quar- 
ters among  the  Jews  of  the  first  century  A.D.,  as  we 
shall  see  later  on,  it  was  omitted  altogether  from 
their  list  of  sacred  books  (e.g.  Melito,  cf  chap.  xi).  The 
doubt  about  its  acceptance  may  possibly  have  arisen 
in  connexion  with  the  Feast  of  Purim.  The  book  con- 
tains the  explanation  of  the  origin  and'  observance  of 
that  feast.  Was  objection  taken  to  the  book  on  the 
ground  of  its  inculcating  a  feast  not  commanded  in  the 
Law  ?  Or  did  the  observance  of  the  feast  on  the  four- 
teenth of  Adar  (Esth.  ix.  19)  appear  to  add  undue 
importance  to  the  festival  which  commemorated  the 
victory  of  Judas  Maccabeus  over  Nicanor  on  the  thir- 
teenth of  Adar  (B.C.  161),  and  was  it  thus  capable  of 
being  regarded  with  suspicion  and  jealousy  by  the 
Pharisee  faction,  who,  throughout  the  greater  part  of 
the  first  century  B.C.,  were  at  deadly  enmity  with  the 
Asmonean  house  ?  Or,  was  it  that  the  fast  commanded 
to  be  observed, on  the  thirteenth  of  Adar,  in  commemo- 
ration of  Haman's  attempt  to  destroy  the  Jews  on  that 

replied  Simon,  "  thou  hast  paid  thy  share,  and  I  niine  .  .  .  Verily  it  is 
written  (Eccles.  vii.  12) :  For  zvisdom  is  a  defence,  and  money  is  a  defence P 


I40  THE   CANON    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  day  (Esth.  iii.  13,  ix.  i),  conflicted  with  the  feast-day  of 
Nicanor,  and  therefore  gave  offence  to  the  populace? 
Such  are  some  of  the  various  suggestions  that  have  been 
made.  Yet  another  ground  of  objection  may  have  been 
found  in  the  absence  of  the  sacred  Name.  This  peculiar 
feature,  which  it  shares  with  i  Maccabees  (in  the  best 
text),  may  be  accounted  for,  either  by  the  exaggerated 
dread  of  profanity  in  the  frequent  use  of  the  sacred 
Name,  or,  as  Riehm  suggests  [Einleit.  ii.  341)  by  the 
writer  having  intended  his  work  not  for  rehgious  usage, 
but  for  reading  on  occasions  of  secular  festivity.  The 
same  explanation,  which  accounts  for  the  absence  of  the 
sacred  Name,  will  account  for  the  hesitation  to  place 
the  work  on  a  level  with  the  rest  of  Scripture. 

'The  day  of  Mordecai'  was  observed  in  the  days  of 
the  writer  of  2  Maccabees  (xv.  36).  Whether,  in  con- 
sequence, we  should  be  justified  in  inferring  the  general 
recognition  of  Esther  among  the  sacred  books  at  the 
beginning  of  the  first  century  A.D.,  is  obviously  a  very 
doubtful  question.  All  we  can  say  is,  that  it  was  recog- 
nised among  the  sacred  books  by  Josephus,  who,  when 
speaking  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  evidently  had  the 
Book  of  Esther  in  view,  as  the  last  book,  in  point  of  date 
of  composition,  that  had  been  admitted  into  the  sacred 
category- (Joseph.  Contr.  Ap.  i.  8). 

The  temper  and  tone  of  the  book,  perhaps,  commended 
it  to  the  choice  of  a  generation  which  still  smarted  under 
the  recollection  of  the  cruelties  perpetrated  by  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes,  and  may  account  for  its  acceptance 
in  the  second  century  B.C.  ;  but,  with  equal  probability, 
it  may  have  incurred  unpopularity  with  the  more 
thoughtful  spirits  among  the  teachers  of  the  people  in 
the  first  century  B.  C.     Was  it  the  recrudescence  of  per- 


r 

MPsecutic 


THE   THIRD  CANON.  I4I 


lecution  that  revived  the  popularity  of  the  book  ?     Did  chap.  vi. 
the  attitude   of  the   Roman   Empire  recall   the  savage 
purpose  of  Haman,  and  restore  the  narrative  of  Esther 
to  favour  ?    Or,  was  it  the  resemblance  between  Haman, 
the  Agagite,  and  Herod,  the  Idumean  ? 

We  mention  the  Books  of  Chronicles  last  of  all,  not  TheBookso/ 
because,  in  their  case,  canonicity  has  been  more  disputed 
than  in  the  case  of  the  three  last-mentioned  books,  but 
because  in  the  traditional  order  of  the  Canon  they  pre- 
sent the  appearance  of  being  added  as  an  appendix.  The 
detachment  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  from  the  main  work, 
their  admission  into  the  Canon  as  a  separate  narrative, 
and  their  position  there  immediately  in  front  of  Chroni- 
cles, form  a  line  of  probable  evidence,  that  the  canonicity 
of  Chronicles  was  recognised  at  a  considerably  later 
date  than  that  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  But  at  what 
date  did  this  take  place?  In  our  Saviour's  time,  the 
Canon  of  Hebrew  Scripture  very  probably  concluded 
with  Chronicles.  The  real  pertinency  of  the  argument 
which  has  been  alleged  in  favour  of  this  view,  based 
upon  our  Lord's  appeal  to  the  whole  category  of 
innocent  blood  shed  'from  the  blood  of  Abel  to  the 
blood  of  Zachariah,'  is  only  then  understood,  when  it  is 
seen  that  He  is  not  referring  to  the  limits  of  time,  from 
Abel  to  Joash  (Matt,  xxiii.  '^^,  Luke  xi.  51,  cf.  2  Chron. 
xxiv.  30-22),  but  to  the  limits  of  the  sacred  Canon, 
from  Genesis  to  Chronicles — from  the  first  to  the  last 
book  in  Hebrew  Scripture :  it  was  equivalent  to  an 
appeal,  in  Christian  ears,  to  the  whole  range  of  the  Bible 
from  Genesis  to  Revelation. 

We  have  nothing  further  to  go  upon  than  probability, 
in  assuming  that  the  four  last-named  books.  Song  of 
SongS;  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  and  Chronicles,  were  accepted 


142  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VI.  into  the  Canon  at  a  later  date  than  the  other  writings  of 
the  Hagiographa.  If  so,  they  may  have  occupied,  for 
some  time,  the  position  of  '  Antilegomena,'  or  disputed 
books,  accepted  by  some  Jews,  and  rejected  by  others. 
The  books  of  the  Hagiographa  were  not  continuously 
read  in  the  Synagogues.  They  were  not,  therefore,  esti- 
mated by  the  same  test  of  public  usage.  It  would  be 
possible,  I  should  think,  for  a  book  to  hover  a  long  time 
in  suspense,  having  been  admitted  into  the  sacred  list  at 
a  time  of  popular  religious  enthusiasm,  but  having  after- 
wards incurred  suspicion,  in  consequence  of  doubts  as 
to  its  orthodoxy,  raised  by  the  factious  jealousy  or 
officious  zeal  of  learned  scribes.  But,  once  admitted,  a 
book  was  never  likely  to  be  excluded.  The  dread  of 
novelty,  which  protected  the  Canon  against  encroach- 
ment, helped  also  to  appease  the  resentment  against 
writings  that  had  already  received  a  quasi-recognition. 
The  fact  of  a  book  having  once  been  received  within 
the  list  of  the  national  Scripture  never  failed  to  out- 
weigh, in  the  long  run,  the  scruples  that  were  felt  at  its 
doubtful  orthodoxy. 

There  are  unfortunately  wide  gaps  in  the  external 
evidence,  which  stretches  over  more  than  two  centuries 
of  Jewish  literature,  from  the  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus, 
written  about  132  B.  C,  down  to  the  Contra  Apionein  of 
Josephus,  written  at  the  close  of  the  first  century  A.  D. 
But  the  external  evidence  requires  separate  considera- 
tion, and  we  must  devote  to  it  the  following  chapter. 


^r 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  THIRD  CANON  {continued). 

I.   The  Greek  Prologtie  to  Ecclesiasticiis.     This  writing  chap.  vii. 
has  already  been  referred  to  ;    and  attention  has  been  Qy^ek  Pro- 
drawn  to  the  importance  of  its  testimony,  the  earHest  [/^"^/^,-^^^' 
that  has  come  down   to   us,  respecting  the  '  tripartite  '32  b.c 
division  of  the  Canon.'     The  vagueness  of  the  writer's 
words,  in  designating  the  third  division,  stands  in  sharp 
contrast  to  the  precision  with   which  he  describes  the 
first  two  divisions  by  the  very  names  that  have  tradi- 
tionally been  attached  to  them.     The  vagueness,  such  as 
it  is,  is  probably  due  to  the  hitherto  undefined  character 
of  the  canonicity,  granted  to  the  miscellaneous  contents 
of  the  new  groXip.     But  the  suggestion  which  has  some- 
times been  made,  that  the  writer  of  the  Prologue  con- 
sidered  his  grandfather's   work   could    ultimately  take 
rank  with  those  '  other '  writings,  among  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Jews,  is  not  justified  by  the  language  of  the  open- 
ing  sentence.      Its    importance    makes    it    desirable    I 
should  quote  it  here  in  exte?tso,  rambling  and   obscure 
though  it  is. 

'  Whereas  many  and  great  things  have  been  delivered 
unto  us  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  by  the  others 
that  have  followed  upon  them,  for  which  it  is  due  to 
commend  Israel  for  instruction  and  wisdom  ;  and  since 
it  behoves  those  who  read  not  only  to  become  skilful 
themselves,  but  also  such  as  love  learning  to  be  able  to 


144  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  profit  them  that  are  without,  both  by  speaking  and  writ- 
ing ;  my  grandfather  Jesus,  seeing  he  had  much  given 
himself  to  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  and 
the  other  books  of  the  fathers,  and  had  gotten  therein 
sufficient  proficiency,  was  drawn  on  also  himself  to  write 
something  pertaining  to  learning  and  wisdom,  to  the 
intent  that  those  who  love  learning  and  become  addicted 
to  these  things,  might  profit  yet  more  by  living  accord- 
ing to  the  law.' 

The  exact  meaning  of  the  last  sentence  may  be  ob- 
scure ;  but  there  is  no  thought  of  putting  the  Wisdom 
of  Sirach  into  competition  with  the  writings  '  of  the 
fathers.'  It  is  affirmed  that  the  author's  sole  object  was 
to  assist  others  to  a  closer  walk  in  accordance  with  the 
law,  and  that  his  assiduous  studies  in  '  the  law,  prophets, 
and  the  other  books '  especially  fitted  him  for  the  task  of 
counselling  them.  The  translator  concludes  the  Prologue 
with  the  remark,  that  he  intends  his  version  *  for  them 
also  who  are  in  a  strange  country  and  prepare  themselves 
in  manners  to  live  after  the  law.' 

The  translator,  if  he  were  like  the  rest  of  his  fellow- 
countrymen,  would  certainly  not  have  placed  *  the  other ' 
writings  on  the  same  level  with  '  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets ' ;  still  less,  we  believe,  would  he  have  regarded 
any  work,  so  recent  as  that  of  his  grandfather,  as  deserv- 
ing of  a  place  among  *  the  books  of  the  fathers.' 

His  view  of  '  the  other  books '  may  be  thus  ex- 
plained. He  was  aware  of  the  two  divisions  of  Holy 
Scripture,  '  the  law  and  the  prophets,'  which  had  long 
stood  over  against,  and  separate  from,  the  great  mass  of 
Hebrew  literature.  But  he  was  aware  also  that  certain 
other  writings  had  recently  been  gradually  raised  above 
the  rest  of  Jewish  literature,  and  had  become  separated 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  145 

from  it,  reverence,  affection,  and  usage  causing  them  to  chap.  vii. 
be  treated  as  similar,  though  not  to  be  reckoned  as  equal, 
in  holiness,  to  '  the  law  and   the  prophets.'     Whether 
this  third  group  already  contained  in  132  B.C.  the  whole 
of  the  Kethubim,  may  reasonably  be  doubted. 

1.    The  Septtiagint    Version.      It  is  disappointing  to  2.  The 
find  how  little  evidence  to  the  Canon  is  to  be  derived  verstm!" 
from  the  LXX  version.    The  version  must  have  been  com-  begun  arc. 
menced  by  the  translation  of  '  the  Law  '  about  the  year  ^^°  ^'^' 
250  B.  c.     The  translation  of  other  books  followed  ;  but, 
outside  *  the  Law,'  there  seems  to  have  been  no  unity  of 
plan.     The  books  were  translated  by   different  hands, 
and  at  different  times.     Versions  of  the  same  book  com- 
peted, as  it  were,  for  general  acceptance.     Those  were 
accepted  which  found  most  general  favour.    With  the  pos- 
sible exception  of  the  Pentateuch  ^,  the  version  contains 
simply  those  renderings  of  books  which,  having  in  course 
of  time  most   recommended  themselves  to  the  Jewish 
residents   in    Alexandria,  outlived,  because   they  were 
preferred  to,  all  other  renderings. 

We  infer  from  the  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus  that  in  possibly  com- 
132  B.C.  a  Greek  translation  already  existed  of  '  the  Law  132  b.c. 
and  the  Prophets  and  the  other  writings.'  '  For  the  same 
things  uttered  in  Hebrew,  and  translated  into  another 
tongue,  have  not  the  same  force  in  them  :  and  not  only 
these  things  (i.  e.  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach),  but  the  law  itself, 
and  the  prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books  have  no  small 
difference,  when  they  are  spoken  in  their  own  language.' 

The  translation  of  some  disputed  books  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha  had  clearly  taken  place  before  the  year  132  B.C. 

^  That  a  Translation  of  the  Torah  was  executed  at  the  request  or  at  the 
expense  of  an  Egyptian  prince  is  the  least  that  may  be  inferred  from  the 
Jewish  tradition  underlying  the  Letter  of  Aristeas  and  the  statements  of 
Josephus  {Ant.  xii.  2,  Cont.  Ap.  ii.  4)  and  Philo  {Vita  Mosis  ii.  5). 

L 


146  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  Whether  all  of  them  had  been  then  translated,  we  can- 
not pretend  to  say  for  certain.  It  appears  that  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  was  known  to 
Eupolemus,  the  historian  (circ.  1 50  B.c.)\  and  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  subscription  to  the  Bookpf  Esther,  the  transla- 
tion of  that  book  may  possibly  be  dated  at  178  B.C.  But 
the  mere  fact  of  the  translation  of  a  book  does  not  convey 
anything  to  us  as  regards  its  position  in  the  Canon. 

The  inclusion  of  the  so-called  Apocryphal  Books  in 
the  LXX  version  is  sometimes  alleged  to  be  a  proof,  that 
the  Alexandrian  Jews  acknowledged  a  wider  Canon  of 
Scripture  than  their  Palestinian  countrymen.  But  this 
is  not  a  legitimate  inference.  Our  copies  of  the  LXX 
are  derived  from  Christian  sources  ;  and  all  that  can 
certainly  be  proved  from  the  association  of  additional 
books  with  those  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  is  that  these 
other  books  found  favour  with  the  Christian  com- 
munity. Doubtless,  they  would  not  thus  have  found 
favour  with  the  Christians,  if  they  had  not  also  enjoyed 
high  repute  among  the  Jews,  from  whom  they  were  ob- 
tained along  with  the  undoubted  books  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon.  The  fact,  however,  that,  neither  in  the  writings 
of  Philo,  nor  in  those  of  Josephus — Jews  who  both  make 
use  of  the  LXX  version — have  we  any  evidence  favouring 
the  canonicity  of  the  Apocryphal  Books,  is  really  conclu- 
sive against  their  having  been  regarded  as  Scripture  by 
Greek-speaking  Jews  before  the  second  century  A.D. 

The  testimony  of  the  LXX  version  has  chiefly  a  nega- 
tive value.  The  translation  of  the  books  by  different 
hands,  and  apparently  without  concert,  would  hardly 
have  taken  place  when  the  Canon  was  fully  determined. 
The  only  considerable  portion  of  the  translation  done  at 

^  Cf.  Freudenthal,  quoted  by  Schiirer,  ii.  p.  733. 


r 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  147 


the  same  time  and  by  the  same  hands  is  the  Pentateuch  ;  chap.  vii. 
and  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  seen,  was  probably  the 
only  certainly  recognised  Canon  at  the  middle  of  the 
third  cent.  B.C.  The  want  of  uniformity,  the  inequalities 
and  inaccuracies  which  characterize  the  rest  of  the  trans- 
lation, show  that  its  execution  was  not  part  of  a  sacred 
duty,  nor  even  carried  out  in  deference  to  any  official 
requirement.  It  may  fairly  be  questioned,  whether  the 
Alexandrine  Jews  could  have  had  any  idea  of  the 
canonicity  of  such  books  as  Daniel  and  Esther,  when 
translations  of  these  books  were  made,  in  which  the  text 
was  allowed  to  differ  so  widely  from  the  original  as  in 
the  LXX  version,  and  Haggadic  variations  were  freely 
interpolated.  Unfortunately  we  do  not  know  when  the 
renderings  were  made.  The  resemblance  in  the  style  of 
the  LXX  version  of  Ecclesiastes  to  that  of  the  version  of 
Aquila  has  been  remarked  upon.  But  it  is  unreasonable 
to  build  upon  this  resemblance  the  theory  that  the  LXX 
version  of  Ecclesiastes  was  rendered  by  Aquila  himself. 
It  belongs  to  the  same  school ;  but  the  improbability  ^  of 
the  suggestion  that  Ecclesiastes  was  not  translated  before 
the  end  of  the  first  century  A.D.,  needs  no  demonstration. 
Yet,  even  if  this  were  shown,  the  date  of  the  Greek 
translation  would  prove  little  as  to  the  date  at  which 
the  Canonicity  of  the  Book  was  determined. 

q.  The  First  Book  of  Maccabees,  which  was  composed  3-  i  Macca- 

^  -'  ^  bees. 

probably  at  the  close  of  the  second  cent.  B.C.  or  early  in 
the  first  cent.  B.C.,  contains  a  reference  to  the  Psalms, 
introduced  with  a  formula  of  quotation  from  Scripture, 
*  Whereupon  they  believed  him  ;  howbeit  he  took  of 
them  threescore  men,  and  slew  them  in  one  day,  accord- 
ing to  the  words  which  he  tvrote,  "  The  flesh  of  thy  saints 
^  See  pp.  i38f. 
L  1 


148  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  havc  they  cast  out  and  their  blood  have  they  shed  round 
about  Jerusalem,  and  there  was   none  to  bury  them 
(i  Mace.  vii.  16,  17  ;  cf.  Ps.  Ixxix.  2,  3). 

We  also  find  in  this  book  (ch.  ii.  59,  60)  a  mention  of 
Ananias,  Azarias,  and  Mesael,  who  '  by  believing  were 
saved  out  of  the  flame,'  and  of  Daniel  who  '  for  his  inno- 
cency  was  delivered  from  the  mouth  of  the  lions.'  Their 
names  are  commemorated  after  the  mention  of  Abraham, 
Joseph,  Phinehas,  Joshua,  Caleb,  David,  and  Elijah.  It 
is  probable  that  the  speech  of  Mattathias  is  intended  to 
pass  in  review  a  list  of  heroic  names,  familiar  to  his 
hearers  through  the  writings  contained  in  the  Canon  of 
Scripture.  But,  though  it  proves  that  the  contents  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel  were  well  known,  it  cannot  be 
claimed  as  establishing  anything  more  than  the  proba- 
bility of  the  book  being  at  that  time  regarded  as  Canon- 
ical. The  reference  in  1  Mace.  i.  54  to  Daniel's  words 
in  Dan.  ix.  24-27  is  undoubted  ;  but  proves  nothing 
more  for  our  purpose  than  acquaintance  with  the  book. 

4.  Phiio.  4.  The  writings  of  Philo,  who  died  about  50  A.D.,  do 

not  throw  very  much  positive  light  upon  the  history  of 
the  Canon.  To  him,  as  to  other  Alexandrine  Jews,  the 
Law  alone  was  in  the  highest  sense  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  alone  partook  of  divine  inspiration  in  the  most 
absolute  degree. 

He  quotes,  however,  extensively  from  other  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  besides  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  while 
it  is  probable  that  he  shows  acquaintance  with  Apo- 
cryphal writings,  he  is  said  never  to  appeal  to  them  in 
support  of  his  teaching  in  the  way  that  he  does  to  books 
included  in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  The  negative  value  of 
his  testimony  is  therefore  fairly  conclusive  against  the 
canonicity  of  any  book  of  the  Apocrypha,  or  of  any 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  T49 

work  not  eventually  included  in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  ch.\p.  vii. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  absence  of  any  reference  in  his 
writings  to  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs, 
Esther,  Ruth  and  Lamentations,  to  which  some  would 
also  add  Chronicles,  must  also  be  taken  into  account  ^. 
Perhaps  we  have  no  right  to  expect  illustration  of 
every  book  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  writings  of 
one  author.  Personal  prejudices  and  predilections,  the 
absence  of  any  point  of  contact  between  a  book  of 
Scripture  and  the  author's  particular  subject,  may  often 
account  for  an  apparent  silence.  But,  in  the  case  of  a 
religious  writer  so  voluminous  as  Philo,  we  cannot  claim 
any  especial  privilege  or  extenuation.  Considering  the 
strange  treatment  accorded  to  the  Books  of  Daniel  and 
Esther  in  the  LXX  version,  it  is  more  than  probable 
that  Philo,  like  other  Jews  in  Alexandria,  had  not 
learned  to  attach  to  them  the  value  of  Canonical  Scrip- 
ture. The  doubts,  too,  which  were  elsewhere  felt  re- 
specting Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Esther,  should 
very  possibly  incline  us  to  suppose  that  Philo's  silence 
respecting  them  was  not  altogether  accidental.  The 
possibility  that  Ruth  is  to  be  included  with  Judges  and 
Lamentations  with  Jeremiah  may  fairly  be  conceded. 

A  famous  passage  in  Philo's  De   Vita  Contemplativa  De  vita 
§  3  (ii.  475),  which  so  clearly  speaks  of  the  tripartite  divi-  %°^J^btfui. 
sion  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  '  laws  and  oracles,  delivered  ^'"^^^^^^■ 
by  prophets,  and  hymns  and  the  other  (books)  by  which 

^  But  Chronicles  (i.  vii.  14)  is  probably  quoted  in  De  Congr,  erud.gr. 
§  8  ;  and  its  acknowledgment  is  practically  implied  by  quotation  from  Ezra 
(viii.  2,  cf.  De  conftts.  ling.  §  28).  On  the  subject  of  Philo's  quotations  cf. 
C.  F.  Homemann,  '  Observ.  ad  illustr.  docir.  de  Can.  V.  T.  ex  Philone^ 

N.  B.  The  quotations  from  Hosea  (xiv.  8,  9,  cf.  De  plant.  N.  §  33)  and 
Zechariah  (vi.  12,  cf.  De  confus.  ling.  §  14)  are  sufficient  attestation  to  his 
use  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  which  were  treated  as  one  book. 


150  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  knowledge  and  piety  are  mutually  increased  and  per- 
fected,' deserves  mention,  on  account  of  its  having  been 
so  often  referred  to  in  connexion  with  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  Canon.  But  grave  doubts  are  entertained  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  The  treatise  in  which 
it  occurs  is  now  supposed  by  some  competent  students  of 
Philo's  works  to  have  been  written  in  the  third  or  fourth 
cent.  A.D.^  Whether  this  be  so  or  not,  we  are  precluded 
from  adducing  it,  with  any  confidence,  as  evidence  to  the 
Jewish  thought  of  the  first  cent.  A.D.  As,  however,  the 
passage  only  relates  to  the  division  of  the  sacred  Canon, 
for  which  we  have  plenty  of  evidence  elsewhere,  and  does 
not  affect  its  contents,  the  loss  of  its  support  is  not  a 
matter  of  any  vital  importance. 
5.  The  New  5.  The  Nczv  Testament,  The  writings  of  the  New  Test- 
ament furnish  clear  evidence  to  the  '  tripartite  division ' 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture.  Our  Lord's  words 
and' the  'that  all  things  must  needs  be  fulfilled  which  are  written 
division':  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms 
Luke^^xyj.  couccming  me'  (Luke  xxiv.  44),  can  hardly  be  under- 
stood on  any  other  supposition  ;  but  they  do  not  warrant 
the  assertion,  which  has  sometimes  been  made,  that  they 
prove  the  completion  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  in  our  Lord's 
time.  Our  Lord  appeals  to  the  Messianic  predictions 
contained  in  the  three  divisions  of  Jewish  Scripture. 
He  .does  not,  however,  apply  the  title  of  '  Psalms '  to  the 
whole  group  of  '  the  Kethubim.'  He  singles  out  the 
Psalter,  we  may  imagine,  from  among  the  other  writings 
of  this  group,  because  the  Messianic  element  in  it  was 
conspicuous,  and  because,  of  all  the  writings  outside 
'  the    Law  and  the  Prophets/  this  book   was  the  best 

^  Lucius,  Die  Therapeuten  (1879).     On  the  ether  side,  see  Edersheim, 
Diet.  Christ.  Biog.,  s.  *  Philo^ 


THE   THIRD  CANON.  151 

known  and  had  produced  the  deepest  influence  upon  the  chap  vii. 
religious  feeling  of  the  Jews.  Our  Lord's  reference  to 
the  group  of  '  the  Prophets '  (John  vi.  45)  may  be  taken 
to  imply  acquaintance  with  the  three  divisions  of  the 
Canon  ;  and  similar  evidence  may  be  derived  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  (vii.  42,  xiii.  40). 

Quotations   are   found   in   the   writings  of  the   New  Books  0/ 
Testament  from  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  qiwied^ex- 
except  Obadiah,  Nahum,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Esther,  P^^"^^^^"- 
Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes.     The  absence  of  any 
reference  to  Obadiah  and  Nahum  does  not  affect  the  ques- 
tion of  the  canonicity  of  these  books  ;  the  whole  collection 
of  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets  was  by  the  Jews  treated  en 
bloc  as  one  canonical  work,  while  the  brevity  of  the  two 
books  in  question  will  quite  account  for  their  not  having 
chanced  to  furnish  appropriate  material  for  quotation. 

When  we  turn  to  the  books  of '  the  Kethubim/  the 
absence  of  any  citation  from,  or  reference  to,  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  does  not  call  for  remark,  as  affecting  the 
question  of  the  canonicity  of  these  books,  seeing  that 
reference  to  the  Chronicles  is  undisputed  (Matt,  xxiii. 
^Si  Luke  xi.  51),  and  the  recognition  of  Chronicles  pre- 
supposes that  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

The  three  '  disputed  '  books,  Esther,  Song  of  Songs,  Est/i.,  Son^ 
and  Ecclesiastesy-  receive  from  the  New  Testament  no  ^^JIlTnot. 
support,  either  by  quotation,  or  by  allusion,  for  their  place  ^^^{^'J^^J^^ 
among  the  Canonical  Scriptures.     On  the  other  hand,  it  ■ 
would    be   rash  to  infer  from  their  contents  not   being 
mentioned  or  referred  to,  that  the  writers  of  the   New 
Testament  did  not  regard   them  as    canonical.     For  it 
cannot  be  said   that  the  contents  of  these   books  were 
at  all  especially  likely  to  supply  matter  for  quotation  or 
illustration  in  the  New  Testament  writings.     If  we  ask 


152 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Groups  to 

which  they 
belong^  re- 
cognised. 


Chap.  VII.  oursclves^  whether,  supposing  these  three  books  to  have 
been  inckided  in  the  Canon,  there  would  be  anything 
improbable  in  their  not  being  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament,  considering  the  peculiar  character  of  each 
of  them,  there  can  be  little  doubt  what  an  unprejudiced 
reply  would  be. 

It  is  perhaps  more  to  the  purpose,  in  order  to  arrive  at 
a  perfectly  fair  judgment  respecting  the  '  silence  '  of  the 
New  Testament,  to  have  regard  not  so  much  to  the  fact 
that  individual  books  are  not  quoted  or  referred  to,  as 
to  the  fact  that  the  groups  of  books  to  which  they  belong 
are  very  definitely  recognised.  The  testimony  of  the 
New  Testament  to  the  latest  written  book  of  the  Canon, 
'Daniel,'  is  very  explicit  (Matt.  xxiv.  15);  and  the 
allusion  to  the  Book  of  Chronicles  in  Matt,  xxiii.  ^tS^ 
Luke  xi.  51,  admits,  as  has  been  mentioned  before,  of 
a  most  suitable  explanation,  when  it  is  regarded  as  an 
appeal  to  the  last  book  in  the  completed  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  If  so,  we  may  suppose  the  recognition  of 
the  others  follows  naturally,  even  though  they  are  not 
directly  cited.  Thus  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes 
may  reasonably  be  imagined  to  have  long  been  popularly 
associated  in  men's  minds  with  the  writings  of  Solomon, 
and  the  Book  of  Esther  with  Daniel  and  Nehemiah, 
and  all  three,  therefore,  to  have  naturally  been  included  in 
the  Canon.  Of  course,  this  is  purely  hypothetical ;  but 
all  three  disputed  works  may  well  have  belonged  to  the 
Canon,  without  either  becoming  the  favourite  literature 
of  the  New  Testament  writers,  or  furnishing  material 
which  in  any  way  affected  their  style,  or  influenced  their 
thought,  or  lent  itself  naturally  for  uses  of  quotation. 

Against  the  hasty  reasoning  that,  because  these  three 
disputed  books  are  not  referred  to  in  the  New  Testa- 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  153 

ment,  they  were,  therefore,  not  reckoned  in  the  Hebrew  Chap.  vii. 
Canon  by  the  first  Christian  writers,  it  must  be  urged, 
(i)  that   these    same   books  were  apparently  regarded 
as  canonical,  at  the  close  of  the  first  century  A.D.,  by  ^.  T.fre- 
the  author  of  4  Esdras  and  by  Josephus,  and  (2)  that  completed 
the  reference  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old  Tes-    '^'^^"' 
tament  Scripture  lead  the  unprejudiced  reader  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  Jewish  Scriptures  were  regarded  in  the 
middle  of  that  century  as  a  complete  and  finished  col- 
lection, the  sanctity  of  which   would   utterly  preclude 
the  idea  of  any  further  alteration.     This  latter  point  is 
probably  one  that  will  have  often  impressed  itself  upon 
readers  of  the  New  Testament.     Allusions  and  appeals 
to  '  the  Scriptures/   '  the  holy  Scriptures,'  '  the  sacred 
writings,'  leave  a  conviction   upon  the  mind,  which  is 
probably  as  strong  as  it  is  instinctive,  that  the  writers 
refer  to  a   sacred  national  collection  which  had  been 
handed  down  from  ages  past,  and  whose  limits  could 
never  be  disturbed  by  addition  or  withdrawal  (e.g.  Matt, 
xxii.  29,  Acts  xviii.  24,  Romans  i.  2,  2  Tim.  iii.  15). 

The  assertion  has  sometimes  been  made  (cf  Wilde-  Apocry- 
boer,  pp.  44-47)  that  the  New  Testament  writers  took  nottrlltek 
a   somewhat  lax  view  of  the  limits  of  the   Canon  o(^^J^^'^' 
Hebrew  Scripture,   and  were  ready  to  extend   it  to  a 
wider  circle  of  writings  than  is  comprised  in  '  the  Law,' 
'  the  Prophets,'  and  '  the  Writings.'     When  we  come  to 
examine    more  closely  what   this  statement  means,  we 
feel  quite  at  a  loss  to   discover   how   such  a   startling 
conclusion   is  reached.     It  is  possible,  nay,   more  pro- 
bable than  not,  that  some  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  were  acquainted  with  some  of  the  books  of 
the  Apocrypha.     But  the  parallelism  of  such  passages 
as  Heb.  i.  3  with  Wisdom  vii.  26,  and  Jas.  i.  9,  19  with 


1 54  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  Ecclus.  iv.  29,  V.  II,  is  not  SO  very  remarkable  as  even 
to  make  it  certain,  that  the  New  Testament  writer 
was  in  each  case  the  borrower  of  the  phrase,  common 
to  him  and  the  Apocryphal  writer.  But,  granting  that 
this  were  the  case,  it  would  show  nothing  more  than 
that  the  New  Testament  writer  was  acquainted  with 
the  contemporary  literature  of  his  people.  In  no  case 
can  it  be  said  that  a  New  Testament  writer  appeals 
to  an  extra-canonical  work  for  support  of  doctrine  or 
statement,  although  references  for  purposes  of  illustra- 
tion may  be  admitted.  I  scarcely  believe  that  any 
tendency  to  enlarge  the  borders  of  the  Hebrew  Canon 
can  seriously  be  thought  to  be  implied  by  the  possible 
reference  in  Heb.  xi.  c^^,  36  to  the  contents  of  2  Mace.  vi. 
i8-vii.  42,  in  Heb.  xi.  37  to  an  unknown  passage  in  the 
Ascension  of  Isaiah,  in  2  Tim.  iii.  8  to  an  unknown 
work  in  which  the  magicians  Jannes  and  Jambres  figured, 
in  Jude  9  to  a  passage  possibly  ^  contained  in  the 
Assumption  of  Moses,  in  Jude  14  to  the  Book  of  Enoch. 
Reference  to  contemporary  literature  is  not  incompatible 
with  strict  views  as  to  the  Canon.  Surely,  to  suggest  that, 
because  reference  is  made  to  such  works  as  those  just 
mentioned — works  which,  so  far  as  is  known,  never  had 
the  slightest  possibility  of  being  included  within  the 
Canon — the  New  Testament  writers  must  therefore  have 
held  very  lax  views  on  the  subject  of  canonicity,  argues 
a  strange  incapacity  to  treat  the  New  Testament  writers 
as  rational  human  beings,  or  as  Jews  of  Palestine  in  the 
first  century  A.D. 

There  remains  to  be  noticed  a  group  of  passages  (Matt, 
xxvii.  9,  Luke  xi.  49,  John  vii.  38,  i  Cor.  ii.  9,  Ephes. 
V.  14,  Jude   14-16),  in  which  it  has  been  alleged  that 

'  Cf.  Origen,  Z>e  Princip.  iii.  2.  i. 


THE    THIRD   CANON.  I55 

ptations  occur  that  cannot  be  identified  with  any  pas-  Chap.  vii. 
"sage  in  the  Old  Testament,  and,  therefore,  can  only  have 
been  made  from  Apocryphal  writings^.  A  reference  to 
any  good  commentary  will  show  that,  whatever  expla- 
nation be  adopted  of  the  difficulty  presented  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  9  and  Luke  xi.  49,  the  theory  of  their  containing 
an  appeal  to  the  authority  of  an  Apocryphal  book  rests  on 
no  trustworthy  foundation  and  is  to  be  rejected.  The  quo- 
tations in  John  vii.  38,  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  are  to  be  explained  as 
giving  the  substance  and  combined  thought  of  more  than 
one  passage  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  words  in  Eph. 
V.  14,  if  not  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way,  may  very 
possibly  have  been  derived  from  some  early  Christian 
liturgical  source.  Only  in  Jude  14-16  do  we  find  a  clear 
case  of  quotation,  and  that  from  the  Apocryphal  Book 
of  Enoch,  a  pseudepigraphic  apocalypse  of  great  value, 
which  exerted  on  Jewish  thought  considerable  influence^. 
In  the  Epistle  of  Jude  it  is  regarded  as  the  genuine  work 
of  Enoch  the  patriarch.  But  there  never  seems  to  have 
been  any  idea  among  Jews  that  the  Book  of  Enoch 
might  be  included  within  the  Canon  ;  and  we  can  hardly 
consider  the  fact  of  its  being  quoted  by  Jude  as  a  proof 
that  its  claims  were  ever  gravely  considered^. 

'  Jerome  {Cofuni.  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9),  '  Legi  nuper  in  quodam  Hebraico 
volumine,  qnod  Nazarenae  sectae  mihi  Hehraeus  obtulit,.  Jeremiae  apocry- 
phum,  in  quo  haec  ad  verbum  scripta  reperi.' 

Origen  on  i  Cor.  ii.  9,  *  In  nullo  regulari  libro  invenitur,  nisi  in  secretis 
Eliae  prophetae.'  {Comm.  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9.  Lommatzsch  v.  29,  ed.  De  la 
Rue,  iii.  118.) 

The  passage  in  Jas.  iv.  5,  6  has  only,  by  a  mistranslation,  been  supposed 
to  contain  a  direct  quotation. 

^  As  may  be  seen  e.g.  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees  and  the  Testamenta  XII. 
Pafr. 

^  Origen  quotes  it,  De  Princip.  iv.  35,  '  Sed  in  libro  suo  Enoch  ita  ait.' 
But  elsewhere  he  says,  '  De  quibus  quidem  hominibus  plurima  in  libellis, 
qui  appellantur  Enoch,  secreta  continentur  et  arcana :  sed  quia  libelli  isti 


156     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  If  the  greater  freedom,  which  the  New  Testament 
writers  are  alleged  to  have  shown  in  their  treatment 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  did  not  permit  them  to  express 
more  clearly  than  they  did  their  recognition  of  the 
important  works  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  it  is 
scarcely  likely  that  a  quotation  from  Enoch,  occurring 
in  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  can  be  accepted  as  proving 
a  general  statement,  for  which  the  other  arguments  when 
taken  in  detail  break  down  so  completely. 

6. 4  Esdras,       5.   The  Fonrtk  Book  of  Esdras.     This  apocalyptic  work 

circ.  90  A.D. 

was  written  not  long  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
possibly  in  the  last  decade  of  the  first  cent.  A.D.  The 
author,  who  purports  to  narrate  the  visions  granted  to 
Ezra,  contemplates,  under  the  veil  of  this  imagery,  the 
condition  of  the  Jews  in  his  own  time,  predicting  the 
days  of  the  Messiah  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Roman 
empire.  The  book  is,  of  course,  devoid  of  any  historical 
value  for  the  period  of  Ezra.  But,  for  the  history  of 
the  Canon  in  the  first  cent.  A.  D.,  it  contains  important 
testimony.  It  relates  the  legend  that  Ezra  was  inspired 
to  recall  to  memory  the  sacred  books  of  his  people  which 
had  been  destroyed  by  the  Chaldeans  \  and  that,  for  the 
space  of  forty  days,  he  dictated  their  contents  to  five  men 

non  videntur  apud  Hebraeos  in  auctoritate  haberi,  interim  nunc  ea,  quae 
ibi  nominantur,  ad  exemplum  vocare  differamus  {Horn,  in  A^uvi.  28.  2.  ed. 
Lomm.  X,  366).  Cf,  C.  Cels.  v.  54.  TertuUian,  '  vScio  scripturam  Enoch  .  .  . 
non  recipi  a  quibusdam,  quia  nee  in  armarium  Judaicum  admittitur.'  {De 
cult.  fern.  i.  3.) 

^  4  Esd.  xiv.  21,  '  Thy  law  is  burnt.'  The  Speaker  s  Comm.  makes  the 
extraordinary  suggestion:  ' Perhaps  with  an  allusion  to  Jehudi's  {sic)  cutting 
to  pieces  and  burning  the  roll  of  the  Law  (Jer.  xxxvi.  26),  But  comp,  iv. 
23,  above,'  On  this  note,  we  observe,  (i)  it  was  not  the  act  of  Jehudi,  but 
of  the  king  Jehoiakim  (Jer.  xxxvi.  28),  (2)  it  was  not  'the  roll  of  the  Law/ 
but  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  (3)  the  passage  is  not  ver.  26,  but  ver.  23. 
The  ref.  to  iv.  23  is  correct. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  157 

who  had  been  gifted  with  divine  understanding  for  the  chap.  vii. 
express  purpose.  The  words  to  which  attention  must 
be  especially  drawn  occur  in  chap.  xiv.  45-48  :  '  In  forty- 
days  they  wrote  ninety-four  books.  And  it  came  to 
pass  when  the  forty  days  were  fulfilled  that  the  Most 
High  spake,  saying,  "  The  first  that  thou  hast  written 
publish  openly,  that  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy  may 
read  it ;  but  keep  the  seventy  last  that  thou  mayest 
deliver  them  only  to  such  as  be  wise  among  the  people  ; 
for  in  them  is  the  spring  of  understanding,  the  fountain 
of  wisdom,  and  the  stream  of  knowledge."  And  I  did  so  ^.' 
We  have  here  the  mention  of  two  groups  of  writings, 
the  one  consisting  of  seventy,  whose  contents  were  to 
be  made  known  only  to  those  especially  worthy,  the 
other  of  twenty-four  (?)  which  were  to  be  made  known 
to  all.  It  has  generally  been  understood  that  the  writer 
intends,  by  his  group  of  seventy,  the  class  of  mystic 
writing  which  only  those  initiated  in  esoteric  literature 
would  understand  and  profit  by.  By  the  books  which 
should  be  published  for  the  benefit  of  all,  scholars 
are  agreed  that,  if  the  reading  'ninety-four'  is  cor- 
rect, the  allusion  is  undoubtedly  to  the  Books  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture  ;  for  their  number,  as  we 
shall  see,  according  to  later  Hebrew  tradition,  was 
almost  invariably  reckoned  as  '  twenty-four.'  It  must, 
however,  be  admitted  that  the  reading  is  uncertain. 
Instead  of  '  ninety-four,'  the  Vulgate  reads  *  two 
hundred  and  four.'  'Ninety-four'  seems  to  be  the 
common  reading  of  the  other  (Eastern)  versions,  the 
Syriac,  Ethiopic,  Arabic,  and  Armenian.  But  the  MSS. 
of  the  Latin  show  the  utmost  variation,  one  reading 
giving  '  nine  hundred  and  four,'  another  '  nine  hundred 

^  See  Excursus  A. 


158  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  and  seventy-four,'  another  '  eighty-four '  (Wildeboer, 
p.  ^^).  Assuming,  however,  that  '  ninety-four '  is  the 
right  reading,  the  reference  to  the  contents  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  is  unmistakable,  and  the  passage  must  be  held  to 
be  one  of  great  interest  and  importance  for  our  purpose. 
(a)  It  testifies  to  the  virtual  closing  of  the  Canon,  and  as  to 
a  familiarly  known  fact,  that  it  consisted  of  twenty-four 
sacred  writings,  (d)  As  the  number  '  twenty-four  '  agrees 
with  the  computation  of  later  tradition,  and  as  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  early  computation  of 
the  twenty-four  books  would  have  made  them  different 
from  the  twenty-four  accepted  at  a  later  time,  we  may 
infer  that  all  the  '  disputed '  books,  including  '  Esther,' 
were  contained  in  the  list  of  canonical  books  recognised 
by  the  writer  of  4  Esdras  I  (c)  It  is  the  first  occasion 
on  which  the  number  of  the  sacred  books  is  mentioned. 
7.  F/avms  J.  Flavius  JoscpJitis.  The  last  testimony  we  here  adduce 
-c/rc!Tio^^  to  the  formation  of  the  Canon  is  supplied  by  the  great 
^•"  Jewish  historian.    In  completeness  and  directness  it  sur- 

passes the  evidence  which  we  have  so  far  reviewed. 
Antiqni-  Autiqiiities  of  the  Jews.     Indirectly  Josephus  throws 

judaicae,     hght,  in  the  course  of  his  History  [Antiquities),  upon 
c/rr.  93  A.D.  ^^  Canon  of  Scripture  received  in  his  time  by  the  Jews. 
But  if  we  only  had  to  rely  upon  his  use  of  Scripture  in 

^  The  suggestion  made  by  Prof.  Robertson  Smith,  Old  Testament  in  the 
Jewish  Church,  p.  408,  that  *  if  94  is  original,  it  is  still  possible  that  70=- 
72  (as  in  the  case  of  the  LXX  translators)  leaving  22  canonical  books,' 
hardly  helps  matters,  {a)  If  70=72,  it  is  nevertheless  expressed  very  defi- 
nitely as  70  ('the  seventy  last'),  leaving  a  balance  of  24.  {b)  For  the  72 
translators,  there  was  a  clear  reason,  i.e.  6  for  each  tribe.  Here  there 
would  be  no  reason  for  72  books.  But  for  70  there  would  be  a  good 
reason,  in  its  being  a  round  number,  and  typical  of  perfection  (lO  x  7). 
See  commentators  on  Gen.  xlvi.  27,  Ex.  xv.  27,  Num.  xi.  25,  Luke  x.  i.  Such 
a  mystical  figure  the  writer  would  apply  to  the  literature,  of  which  bis  own 
apocalypse  was  probably  a  typical  specimen. 


THE    THIRD   CANON.  l59 

the  construction  of  this  narrative,  we  should  not  be  much  Chap.  vn, 
further  advanced  upon  our  way.  Josephus,  generally, 
makes  use  of  the  LXX  version,  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  he  does  not  hesitate  to  embellish  the  Biblical  nar- 
rative with  untrustworthy  legends.  He  makes  use  of  the 
Books  of  Ruth,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  and  Esther  ;  but  in  the 
Book  of  Esther  he  employs  the  Greek  version,  and  has 
recourse  to  the  apocryphal  i  Esdras  with  as  much  readi- 
ness as  to  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (cf.  Antiq. 
xi.  3).  In  the  history  of  the  Maccabean  period  he  relies 
upon  I  Maccabees.  Beyond,  therefore,  showing  acquain- 
tance with  all  the  narrative  literature  that  is  contained  in 
the  Hebrew  Canon,  the  Antiquities  fail  to  give  us  any  de- 
finite information  as  to  either  the  date  of  the  conclusion, 
or  the  limit  of  the  contents,  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  ^ 

In  his  description  of  Solomon,  Josephus  makes  no 
allusion  to  his  being  supposed  to  have  written  the 
books  of  Ecclesiastes  and  Song  of  Songs  ;  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  his  having  been  the  writer  of  the  Book  of 
Proverbs.  The  truth  is,  he  writes  his  History  without 
any  pretence  of  literally  restricting  himself  to  the 
limits  which  his  countrymen,  for  purposes  of  their  reli- 
gious use,  had  set  to  the  contents  of  their  Scriptures. 
Thus,  in  his  Preface  to  the  Antiquities  (chap.  3). 
he  only  uses  rhetorical  language,  which  it  would  denote 
a  complete  misconception  of  his  style  to  interpret 
literally,  as  if  it  were  the  expresssion  of  a  laxer  concep- 
tion of  the  sacred  Canon  than  that  generally  entertained 
by  his  countrymen,  when  he  says,  '  our  sacred  books, 
indeed,  contain  in  them  the  history  of  five  thousand 
years.'     Similarly,  at  the  close  of  the  Antiquities  {-k^x..  2), 

*  The  language  of  Josephus  respecting  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  its  position 
among  the  sacred  writings  deserves  especial  notice  (^Ant.  xi.  ii.  7). 


l6o     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  after  stating  that  *  these    Antiquities  contain  what  has 
been  handed  down  to  us  from  the  time  of  the  Creation 

of  man  to  the  twelfth  year  of  the  reign  of  Nero ' 

he  goes  on  to  claim  that  he  has  '  accurately  recorded 
.  .  .  everything  according  to  what  is  written  in  our 
sacred  books.'  But  it  is  evident  that  he  is  here  using 
the  language  of  rhetorical  exaggeration.  No  one  would 
have  the  temerity  to  suggest,  that  Josephus,  or,  indeed, 
any  Jew  of  his  time,  would  have  reckoned  among 
'  the  sacred  books '  the  chronicles  which  recorded  the 
history  of  the  Jews  in  the  reigns  of  Augustus  and 
Tiberius  Caesar,  or  would  ever  have  associated  the 
historical  treatises  of  a  Demetrius  and  an  Artapanes 
with  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  Josephus  merely 
means  that  he  makes  full  use,  as  long  as  he  can,  of  the 
acknowledged  sacred  books,  and  continues  their  narrative 
down  to  contemporary  times.  He  certainly  does  not 
intend  to  suggest  that  the  other  Jewish  authorities,  to 
which  he  had  recourse  for  historical  materials,  were 
reckoned  either  by  him  or  by  his  countrymen  as  worthy 
to  rank  in  the  same  category  with  Scripture.  He  may 
be  guilty  of  laxity  of  language  ;  there  is  nothing  to 
justify  the  supposition  that  he  was  more  liberal  in  his 
conception  of  a  sacred  Canon. 
Dejudaeo-  The  Dialogue  against  Apioii.  But  our  attention  must 
Vausive  "^  HOW  bc  dircctcd  to  the  important  passage  in  another 
^AHonem  work  of  Joscphus,  the  Contra  Apionem.  In  the  open- 
circ.  looA.D.  ing  chapter  of  that  treatise  he  repeats  the  rhetorical 
language  with  which  he  had  concluded  his  history. 
'  These  Antiquities  contain  the  history  of  five  thousand 
years,  and  are  taken,  out  of  our  sacred  books  and 
written  by  me  in  the  Greek  tongue'  (chap.  i).  He 
then  proceeds  to  defend,  at  some  considerable  length, 


THE  THIRD  CANON.  l6l 

ihe  accuracy  of  the  materials  for  Jewish  history,  and  chap.vii. 
|o  maintain  their  superior  credibility  in  comparison 
vith  the  histories  of  other  nations,  of  the  Greeks 
nore  especially  (chap.  4).  In  the  following  remark- 
able words  he  asserts  the  accuracy  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  and  rests  it  upon  the  ground  of  their  divine 
Inspiration  :  *  It  has  not  been  the  case  with  us  that  all 
alike  were  allowed  to  record  the  nation's  history  ;  nor 
lis  there  with  us  any  discrepancy  in  the  histories  re- 
corded. No,  the  prophets  alone  obtained  a  knowledge  of 
the  earliest  and  most  ancient  things  by  virtue  of  the 
inspiration  which  was  given  to  them  from  God,  and 
they  committed  to  writing  a  clear  account  of  all  the 
events  of  their  own  time  just  as  they  occurred  '  (chap.  7). 
pHe  then  proceeds  to  give  a  description,  in  greater  detail, 
of  these  inspired  writings.  He  points  out  that^  because 
they  were  divinely  inspired,  they  were  able,  although 
only  twenty-two  in  number,  ta  convey  a  perfect  and 
complete  record.  His  words  are :  '  For  it  is  not  the  c/^a  8. 
case  with  us  (i.  e.  as  it  is  with  the  Greeks)  to  have  vast 
numbers  of  books  disagreeing  and  conflicting  with  one 
another.  We  have  but  two  and  twenty,  containing  the 
history  of  all  time,  books  that  are  justly  believed  in  ^ 
And  of  these,  five  are  the  books  of  Moses,  which 
comprise  the  laws  and  the  earliest  traditions  from  the 
creation  of  mankind  down  to  the  time  of  his  (Moses') 
death.  This  period  falls  short  but  by  a  little  of  three 
thousand  years.  From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the 
(death  ^)  of  Artaxerxes,  King   of  Persia,  the  successor 

^  The  usual  reading,  *  believed  to  be  divine,'  is  probably  a  gloss.  *  ©era 
ante  ircinaTevfiiva,  add.  Euseb.'     (Niese.  in  loc). 

^  If  apxvs  is  only  a  gloss,  reKevriis  must  be  supplied.  The  reference  to 
*  Artaxerxes'  might  suggest  that  the  Book  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  is  thought 
M 


l6z  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  of  Xcrxcs,  the  prophets  who  succeeded  Moses  wrote  the 
history  of  the  events  that  occurred  in  their  own  time,  in 
thirteen  books.  The  remaining  four  documents  comprise 
hymns  to  God  and  practical  precepts  to  men.  From 
the  days  of  Artaxerxes  to  our  own  time  every  event  has 
indeed  been  recorded.  But  t/tese  recent  records  have  not 
been  deemed  worthy  of  equal  credit  with  those  which 
preceded  them,  on  account  of  the  failure  of  the  exact 
succession  of  the  prophets  \  There  is  practical  proof 
of  the  spirit  in  which  we  treat  our  Scriptures.  For 
although  so  great  an  interval  of  time  (i.e.  since  they  were 
written)  has  now  passed,  not  a  soul  has  ventured  either 
to  add,  or  to  remove,  or  to  alter  a  syllable  ;  and  it  is  the 
instinct  of  every  Jew,  from  the  day  of  his  birth,  to  con- 
sider those  (Scriptures)  as  the  teaching  of  God,  to  abide 
by  them,  and,  if  need  be,  cheerfully  to  lay  down  life  in 
their  behalf.' 

Before  examining  the  full  bearing  of  this  important 

passage  upon  the  history  of  the  Canon,  we  must  realize 

josephus:    the  contcxt  in  which  it  stands,     (i)  We  must  remember 

of  Jews.       that  Josephus  writes  as  the  spokesman  of  his  people,  in 

of,  did  we  not  know  that  in  Antiq.  xi.  5  the  Artaxerxes  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah  is  called  by  Josephus  '  Xerxes,'  and  that  in  xi.  6.  i  the  Ahasuerus  of 
the  Book  of  Esther  is  called  '  Artaxerxes.'  ('  After  the  death  of  Xerxes  the 
kingdom  came  to  his  son  Cyrus,  whom  the  Greeks  called  Artaxerxes.') 
The  Artaxerxes  of  our  passage,  therefore,  is  Ahasuerus,  whom  Josephus  took 
to  be  the  son  of  the  Persian  king  that  favoured  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

^  The  usual  translations  of  this  clause  fail  to  give  the  full  meaning,  e.g. 
*  Because  there  has  been  no  exact  succession  of  prophets  '  (Robertson 
Smith,  O.T.J. C,  p.  408)  ;  '  Because  there  was  not  then  an  exact  succession 
of  prophets'  (Shilleto's  V^'histon),  The  position  of  the  article  shows  that 
Josephus  has  in  his  mind  the  unbroken  succession  of  prophets  whose  writings 
had  supplied  the  Holy  Scripture.  The  line  of  prophets  failed ;  and  the 
failure  of  the  prophetic  spirit  brought  to  a  close  '  the  succession  '  of  inspired 
writings.  Josephus  echoes  the  lament  of  his  people  that  since  Malachi  the 
prophets  had  ceased. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  163 

order  to  defend  the  accuracy  and  sufficiency  of  their  chap.  vii. 
Scriptures,  as  compared  with  the  recent  and  contra- 
dictory histories  by  Greek  writers  (cf.  ch.  3-4).  In 
this  controversy  he  defends  the  judgment  of  his  peo- 
ple. He  does  not  merely  express  a  personal  opinion, 
he  claims  to  represent  his  countrymen.  (2)  We  must  Uses\.yix. 
remember  that  he  is  addressing  foreigners,  and  that  he 
writes  in  Greek  to  Greeks.  He  cannot  assume  that 
his  readers  would  be  acquainted  with  Hebrew  ;  but  he 
may  reasonably  expect  them  to  know  the  Alexandrine 
version.  His  own  habit  in  the  Antiquities,  his  previous 
work,  had  been  to  refer  to  the  LXX  version.  We  may  be 
sure,  therefore,  that,  in  the  present  treatise,  he  will  speak 
of  the  sacred  books  of  his  race,  as  they  would  be  accessible 
to  Greek-speaking  readers.  In  other  words,  he  writes 
with  the  LXX  version  before  him.  (3)  We  must  remember  Belie/ in 
that  he  has  just  explained  his  view  of  the  inspiration 
which  the  Jewish  prophets  partook  of.  The  books 
he  here  describes  are  those  only  'that  were  justly 
believed  in.'  He  has  in  his  mind  the  sacred,  but  limited, 
library  of  the  Jews,  exclusive  of  their  miscellaneous 
literature  from  which  he  had  borrowed  in  the  composi- 
tion of  his  Antiquities. 

How  then  does  he  describe  the  Sacred  Books  ? 

(1)  He  mentions  their  number;  he  speaks  of  th^m.  His  Canoti, 
as  consisting  of  twenty-two  books.  He  regards  them  as  " 
a  well-defined  national  collection.  That  is  to  say, 
Josephus  and  his  countrymen,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  cent.  A.D.,  recognised  a  collection  of  what  he, 
at  least,  calls  twenty-two  books,  and  no  more,  as  the 
Canon  of  Holy  Scripture.  This  Canon  it  was  profana- 
tion to  think  of  enlarging,  diminishing,  or  altering  in  any 
way. 

M  2 


164 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Canonicity. 


Chap.  VII.  (2)  He  rccords  a  test  of  their  canonicity.  He  mentions 
standardof  ^^c  Standard  which,  apparently,  in  current  Jewish  opinion, 
all  books  satisfied  that  were  included  in  the  Canon.  No 
historical  writings,  it  seems,  belonged  to  it  which  were 
deemed  to  have  been  composed  later  than  the  reign  of 
Ahasuerus.  The  mention  of  this  particular  limit  seems 
to  be  made  expressly  with  reference  to  the  book  of 
Esther,  in  which  alone  the  Artaxerxes  of  Josephus  (the 
Ahasuerus  of  the  Hebrew  book  of  Esther)  figures. 
Thus  we  learn  that  a  popularly  accepted  test,  that  of 
date  of  composition,  however  erroneously  applied, 
determined  the  question  of  canonicity.  In  the  first  cent. 
A.D.,  the  impression  prevailed  that  the  books  of  the 
Canon  were  all  ancient,  that  none  were  more  recent  than 
Ahasuerus,  and  that  all  had  long  been  regarded  as  can- 
onical. The  same  limit  of  date,  although  not  so  clearly 
applied  to  the  poetical  books,  was,  in  all  probability, 
intended  to  apply  equally  to  them,  since  they  combined 
with  the  books  of  the  prophets  to  throw  light  upon  the 
same  range  of  history.  That  such  a  standard  of  canoni- 
city as  that  of  antiquity  should  be  asserted,  crude  as  it 
may  seem,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  convince  us  that 
the  limits  of  the  Canon  had  for  a  long  time  been  un- 
disturbed. 

(3)  In  his  enumeration  of  the  books,  Josephus  mentions 
five  books  of  Moses,  thirteen  prophetical  books,  and  four 
books  of  hymns  and  moral  teaching.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  he  does  not  follow  the  tripartite  division  of 
the  Canon,  nor  does  he  state  the  number  of  the  books 
as  twenty-four,  in  accordance  with  later  Hebrew  tra- 
dition, but  as  twenty-two.  That  he  does  not  mention 
the  Hebrew  triple  grouping  of  the  sacred  books  admits  of 
by  subject,     a  natural  explanation,     {a)  He  is  referring,  in  particular, 


Ell  toner  a- 
Hon, 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  165 

to  the  historical  books  of  the  Jews,  and  he  would  chap.  vii. 
naturally  class  them  all  together,  (b)  He  had  in  his  a^LxxT 
mind  the  LXX  version  in  which  the  Hebrew  grouping 
is  not  reproduced.  He  was  not  likely  to  risk  the  be- 
wilderment he  might  cause  his  Gentile  readers  by 
the  mention  of  the  Hebrew  arrangement,  which, 
as  it  differed  from  the  Greek,  would  require  special 
explanation. 

That  he  speaks  of  twenty-two,  and  not  of  twenty-four, 
books,  admits  of  a  similar  explanation.  There  is  no 
necessity  to  suppose  he  is  contemplating  a  smaller  Canon 
than  that  which  has  come  down  to  us.  We  know  that 
he  makes  use  of  the  LXX  version  ;  we  know  too  that 
those,  in  later  time,  who  reckoned  the  books  of  Hebrew 
Scripture  as  twenty-two  in  number,  accepted  the  com- 
plete Canon,  undiminished  in  size.  There  is  little  reason 
to  doubt  that  Josephus'  enumeration  of  twenty- two  books 
is  due  to  his  reckoning  Ruth  with  Judges,  and  Lamenta- 
tions with  Jeremiah.  In  later  lists,  e.g.  those  of  Origen 
and  Jerome,  the  number  twenty-two  is  reached  in  this 
way  (see  below) ;  and,  in  the  list  of  Melito,  '  Lamenta- 
tions,' which  is  missing,  is  doubtless  understood  in  the 
mention  of  Jeremiah. 

If,  then,  we  may  understand  the  '  twenty-two  '  books  of 
the  Canon  referred  to  by  Josephus  as  the  same  as  those 
included  in  later  lists,  Ruth  being  reckoned  with  Judges, 
Lamentations  with  Jeremiah,  how,  we  may  ask,  does  he  Thirteen 
distribute  them  ?  What  are  the  thirteen  books  of  the  Prophets 
Prophets  ?  What  the  four  books  of  hymns  and  practical 
precepts  ?  The  thirteen  books  of  the  Prophets  are  pro- 
bably the  following  : — (i)  Joshua,  (2)  Judges  and  Ruth, 
(3)  Samuel,  (4)  Kings,  (5)  Chronicles,  (6)  Ezra  and  Ne- 
hemiah,  (7)   Esther,  (8)    Job,  (9)   Daniel,  (lo)    Isaiah, 


1 66  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VII.  (ii)  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations,  (12)  Ezekiel,  (13)  The 

Twelve  Minor  Prophets. 
Four  Books  The  four  books  of  hymns  and  practical  precepts  are 
\c.  ^^"^^^  probably  the  following: — (i)  Psalms,  and  (2)  Song  of 
Songs,  which  constitute  '  the  hymns  ; '  (3)  Proverbs,  and 
(4)  Ecclesiastes,  which  constitute  '  the  practical  pre- 
cepts.' 

Of  this  distribution  we  cannot,  of  course,  speak  con- 
fidently ;  but  it  appears  the  most  probable.  The 
objection  that  the  Book  of  Job  is  made  to  rank 
among  the  historical  writings  is  not  a  grave  one,  since 
it  was  popularly  considered  to  contain  the  history  of  the 
patriarch.  The  position  of  Ecclesiastes  is  certainly  suit- 
able, while  that  of  Daniel  is  very  intelligible.  Gratz  ^, 
who  fancied  that  neither  Ecclesiastes  nor  Song  of  Songs 
had  been  received  into  the  Canon  in  Josephus'  time,  left 
these  two  out  of  the  list,  and  then  separated  Ruth  and 
Lamentations  from  Judges  and  Jeremiah,  an  arrange- 
ment which  happily  corresponded  with  Gratz's  own 
views  as  to  the  date  of  Ecclesiastes  and  Song  of  Songs. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  with  the  words  of 
Josephus,  in  speaking  of  a  long-settled  Canon,  the  sup- 
position that  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes  were  im- 
ported into  it  shortly  after  Josephus  wrote.  Gratz's 
theory  finds  no  support  in  later  lists,  in  which,  if  there 
is  any  divergency  from  the  one  we  have  ascribed  to 
Josephus,  it  is  not  found  in  connexion  with  either  of 
the  two  books,  Song  of  Songs  or  Ecclesiastes. 

*  Cf.  Kohelet,  p.  169. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Third  Canon  {concluded). 

Accordingly,  we  conclude  that  the  contents  of  the  chap.  viii. 
Canon  which  Josephus  acknowledged,  may  be  regarded,  Canott 
with  some  degree  of  confidence,  as  the  same  with  the  ^byjosepims 
contents  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  at  a  later  time.     In  other  ^^^^f'"""" 
words,  the   limits    of  the   group   of  '  the  Writings/  or  accepted. 
'  Kethubim,'  had  practically  been    determined,  and  the 
Canon  of  Hebrew  Scripture  had,  therefore,  practically 
been  closed,  when  Josephus  wrote.     Practically,  we  say  ; 
for  whether  the  conclusion  of  it  had  been  officially  ac- 
knowledged, or  its  compass  been  authoritatively  decided 
by  the  religious  leaders  of  the  people,  we  cannot  know  for 
certain.    Very  probably  there  was  no  need  for  an  official 
pronouncement  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  byjoA.D. 
Titus.     We  nowhere  find  traces  of  any  attempt  to  intro- 
duce into  the  early  Synagogue  worship  a  systematic  read- 
ing from  the  Hagiographa,  The  modern  Synagogue  use  of 
*  the  Hagiographa '  dates  from  a  much  later  century^.  The 
question,  therefore,  of  the  canonicity  of  a  book  would  not 
be  raised   in  any  acute  form,  if  the  public  use  of  it  was 
irregular  and  occasional.     A  '  disputed  book '  would  be 
used,  where  it  met  with  esteem  and  favour  ;  by  those 

^  They  may  have  been  at  an  early  date  used  in  the  Synagogue  for  pur- 
poses of  interpretation  and  exposition  {Midrash),  but  not  of  the  lectionary 
{d.Jer.  Sabb.  i6,  fol.  15  ;  Tosephta  Sabb.  13'. 


honour  of 
Scripture. 


1 68  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VIII.  who  entertained  doubts  of  its  orthodoxy  or  sanctity,  its 
use  would  simply  be  discontinued.  It  was  not,  we  may 
suppose,  until  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  that  the 
necessity  for  a  stricter  definition  of  the  Canon  was 
generally  felt. 


Desiruciion       Two  circumstanccs  probably  conduced,  after  the  great 
saiem.         catastrophc,  to  make  some  official  statement  desirable 

respecting  the  contents  of  the  Sacred  Collection. 
Heightened  (i)  Firstly,  thc  dcstruction  ofjcrusalcm had  brokcn  up 
the  rallying-place  of  the  Jewish  people  ;  it  had  scattered 
the  schools  of  the  scribes  ;  it  had  ended  for  ever  the  Tem- 
ple services  ;  it  had  dealt  a  deadly  blow  at  the  very  heart 
of  religious  Judaism.  As  on  the  occasion  of  the  previous 
disasters,  inflicted  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  by  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  so  now,  after  the  great  Roman  catastrophe, 
the  religion  of  the  Jews,  which  the  nations  of  the  world 
believed  to  have  perished  among  the  ashes  of  the  Temple, 
lived  again  through  the  power  of  their  Scriptures. 
The  sense  of  the  irreparable  loss  they  had  sustained 
made  the  Jewish  doctors  doubly  anxious  to  safe- 
guard *  the  oracles '  which  still  survived,  the  Holy  Books. 
We  can  understand,  how,  henceforth,  the  veneration  which 
had  encompassed  the  books  of  the  Canon  was  raised 
almost  to  the  pitch  of  idolatry.  The  Scriptures  were  a 
token  from  Jehovah.  They  still  survived  to  recall  the 
mercies  of  the  past ;  and  they  sufficed  to  infuse  into  the 
race  the  indomitable  courage  and  devotion  with  which 
they  faced  the  future.  In  the  period  that  immediately 
followed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  we  should  expect 
to  hear  of  some  earnest  endeavour  on  the  part  of  the 
Jewish  leaders  to  add,  if  possible,  yet  greater  prestige  to 


THE  THIRD   CANON.  169 

the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  to  clear  away  doubts,  where  any  chap.  viii. 
existed,   respecting   '  disputed '    books,  and,  by  a  final 
definition  of  the  limits  of  the  Canon,  to  prevent  the  in- 
"  troduction  into  the  sacred  list  of  any  book  which  had  not 
stood  the  test  of  time. 

(2)  Secondly,  the  general  use  and  growing  influence  oi  Danger oj 
the  LXX  version  among  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  of  the  version 
Dispersion  threatened  to  lead  to  some  misconception  as  encroachitig 

:  ^  ^  on  Canon  of 

\  to  the  contents  of  the  true  Hebrew  Canon.     The  sug-  Hebrew 

:  .  -I         1  1  T         •    1  •  •      Scripture. 

rgestion  has  been  made  that  the  Jewish  community  in 
Alexandria  formally  recognised  a  distinct  Canon  of  much 
wider  limits  than  that  of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  The 
suggestion  no  doubt  rested  on  a  misconception  due  to  the 
fact  that  Apocryphal  books  (e.g.  i  and  2  Maccabees, 
Sirach,  Wisdom)  are  included  in  the  copies  of  the  LXX 
version,  and  were  quoted  as  Scripture  by  the  early 
Fathers  of  Alexandria.  The  MSS.,  however,  of  the 
LXX  are,  all  of  them,  of  Christian  origin  ;  and,  moreover, 
differ  from  one  another  in  the  arrangement  as  well  as  in 
the  selection  of  the  books.  There  is  no  uniform  Alex- 
andrian list.  The  Christian  Church  derived  their  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  from  the  Jews  ;  but  whether  they 
found  the  books  of  the  '  Apocrypha  '  in  Jewish  copies,  or 
added  them  afterwards,  we  have  no  means  of  judging. 
Perhaps  the  copies  which  the  Christians  of  Alexandria 
adopted,  happened  to  contain,  in  addition  to  the  Canon- 
ical Scriptures,  certain  other  writings  which  the  Jews  in 
Alexandria  were  more  especially  attached  to.  We  can- 
not say  for  certain.  But  we  do  know  that  in  Alexandria, 
if  we  may  judge  from  Philo  and  the  writer  of  the  Book 
of  Wisdom,  the  veneration  for  the  law  had  been  car- 
ried to  such  an  extent,  that  a  wider  interval  seemed  to 
separate  '  the  Law '  from  the  other  books  of  the  Hebrew 


170     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VIII.  Canon  than  that  which  separated  the  other  sacred  books 
from  the  works  of  the  great  or  wise  men  of  any  time  or 
country  ^.  Perhaps,  in  Alexandria,  no  formal  list  was 
recognised.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  line  of  demarcation 
was  apt  to  become  very  slight ;  and  the  prevalent  liberal 
tone  seems  to  have  led  men  not  only  to  tolerate  variation, 
not  only  to  welcome,  along  with  the  recognised  books 
of  Scripture,  such  writings  as  '  Ecclesiasticus '  and  '  Wis- 
dom,' but  even  to  approve  and  license  the  addition  of 
Haggadic  legends  and  amplifications  in  the  Greek  ver- 
sions of  Job,  Daniel,  and  Esther. 
Less  The  utmost  confusion  was  likely  to  arise,  when  the  de- 

kn^,  struction  of  Jerusalem  bereft  the  Palestinian  tradition 
7Zken^^^^  of  Scripture  of  its  historic  centre.  The  number  of 
the  Hebrew-reading  Jews  was  likely  to  diminish  yet 
more,  and  the  number  of  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  to 
increase.  If  the  Hebrew  Canon  was  permanently  to  be 
preserved,  it  was  necessary  that  it  should  forthwith  be 
carefully  defined.  If  a  Hebrew,  and  not  a  Greek,  tra- 
dition of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  was  to  prevail,  there 
must  be  no  mistake  what  the  Hebrew  Canon  was.  The 
inevitable  alternative  would  be,  that  the  Greek  Alexan- 
drine version  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  with  its  different 
arrangement  and  possibly  its  more  elastic  limits,  would 
pass  into  general  acceptance  and  overwhelm  the  tradition 
of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  scribes  of  Palestine. 
77ie\.y.yi,the      Another  cause  of  perplexity  in  connexion  with  the 

Christian  _  . 

Church,       LXX,  not  to  say  of  objection  to  its  use,  arose  from  the 
'version.      adoption  of  it  by  the  Christian  Church  as  their  sacred 
Scripture.     If  Aquila's  more  literal  and  uniform  render- 
ing was  intended  to  supply  the  place  of  the  LXX  with 
the  stricter  Jews,   it  affords  another  illustration  of  the 

1  Cf.  Philo,  Vita  Mosis,  §§  8,  23,  24,  and  De  Cherub.j  §  14. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  17I 

anxiety  that  was  felt  in  the  second  cent.  A.D.  concerning  Chap.  vnr. 
the   Hebrew  Scriptures,  and   of  the  desire  to  keep  the 
tradition  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  free  from  the  influence 
of  the  Alexandrine  version. 

Whether  we  attach  to  these  circumstances  much  or  Questions  of 
little  importance  in  the  last  phases  of  the  formation  oi  discussed  by 
the  Canon,  they  cannot,  I  think,  be  altogether  ignored.  ^^d^^f%^ 
They  at  least  tended  to  hasten  a  result,  which  cannot  be  Cent  a.d. 
placed  much  later  than  the  end  of  the  first  cent.  A.D.  or 
the  beginning  of  the  second  cent.  A.D.  That  result  we 
believe  to  have  been  some  sort  of  an  official  declaration 
by  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  that  finally  determined  the  limits 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  The  fact  that  the  Mishnah,  the 
contents  of  which  had  been  current  in  an  oral  form 
before  they  were  committed  to  writing  at  the  end  of  the 
second  cent.  A.D.,  assumes  the  existence  of  fixed  limits 
to  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  is  probably  sufficient  to  show 
that  a  considerable  interval  of  time  had  elapsed  since  its 
determination.  The  Mishnah  records  how  disputes  arose 
between  Jewish  Rabbis  upon  the  canonicity  of  certain 
books,  and,  in  particular,  of  books  in  the  Hagiographa, 
and  how  the  doubts  were  allayed  through  the  influence 
of  such  men  as  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zaccai  and  Rabbi 
Akiba,  who  died  about  135  A.D.  {Yadaim,  iii.  5).  The 
language  which  they  are  reported  to  have  used  shows, 
beyond  all  question,  that  they  accepted  the  tripar- 
tite division  of  the  Canon,  and  that,  even  while  they 
were  discussing  the  qualities  of  books  whose  right  to  a 
position  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture  was  questioned  by 
some,  they  never  doubted  that  the  contents  of  the  Canon 
had  been  determined. 

Now  we   happen   to  know  that  a  council  of  Jewish  Synod  oj 
Rabbis  was  held  at  Jamnia  (Jabne),  not  very  far  from  J"'^^^^^'^' 


17^2 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAxMENT. 


Chap.  VIII.  Jaffa,  about  the  year  90  A.D.,  and  again,  perhaps,  in 
118  A.D.  Rabbi  GamaHel  II  seems  to  have  presided  \ 
and  Rabbi  Akiba  was  the  prominent  spirit.  In  the 
course  of  its  deliberations  the  subject  of  the  Canon  was 
discussed.  It  was  decided  that  the  difficuhies  which 
had  been  felt  about  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  and  the 
Song  of  Songs  could  be  fairly  answered -(i:V/0'<?///,  v.  3). 
The  suggestion  has  been  made,that  we  have  in  the  Synod 
ofjamniathe  official  occasion,  on  which  the  Hmits  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  were  finally  determined  by  Jewish  au- 
thorities. 

It  may,  indeed,  very  well  have  happened  at  this,  or  at 
some  similar,  gathering  about  that  time.  In  the  absence 
of  precise  information — for  the  Rabbinic  evidence  is 
fragmentary  and  the  reverse  of  precise — we  can  only  say 
that,  as  the  time  at  which  the  Synod  of  Jamnia  was  held, 
and  apparently  the  subjects  which  occupied  its  discus- 
sions, are  favourable  to  the  conjecture,  there  is  no  reason 
for  objecting  to  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Synod  of 
Jamnia  can  be  little  else  to  us  but  a  name  ;  still,  as  it  is 
a  name  connected  with  the  ratified  Canonicity  of  certain 
books,  it  may  symbolize  the  general  attitude  of  the  Jewish 
doctors,  and  their  resolve  to  put  an  end  to  the  doubts 
about  the  '  disputed  '  books  of  the  Hagiographa. 

We,  therefore,  take  the  year  100  A.D.  as  representing, 
as  nearly  as  possible,  the  tennimis  ad  quern  in  the  gradual 
formation  of  the  Canon.  It  marks,  however,  only  the 
official  conclusion.  Practically,  we  may  be  sure,  its 
bounds  had  long  before  been  decided  by  popular  use. 

The  commencement  of  the  process  by  which  the  books 


Jewis/i 
official 
coiiclusio}i 
of  Canon ^ 
about 
KK)  A.U. 


^  Gamaliel  II  succeeded  Johanan  ben  Zaccai,  and  was  himself  succeeded 
by  Eleazar  ben  Azariah  as  head  of  the  School  at  Jamnia.  Cf  Strack,  Art. 
Talmud,  Herzog-Plitt,  R.E.^  xviii.  p.  346. 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  173 

of  '  the  Writings '  were  annexed  to  '  the  Law  and  the  chap.  viit. 
Prophets '  is  probably  to  be  ascribed,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  to  the  beginning  of  the  era  of  the  Maccabean  as- 
cendency (160-140  B c).  Two  centuries  and  a  half  later 
the  final  results  of  that  process  received  an  official  ratifi- 
cation at  Jamnia  or  elsewhere.  And  yet,  we  have  reason 
to  believe,  all  the  books  included  in  the  third  group  of 
the  Canon  had  obtained  some  measure  of  recognition, 
either  complete  and  undisputed,  or  partial  and  dis- 
puted, within  fifty  years  from  the  commencement  of  the 
formation  of  the  third  group.  The  Jewish  Rabbis  had 
only,  as  it  were,  to  affix  an  official  seal  to  that  which  had 
already  long  enjoyed  currerfcy  among  the  people. 

Concerning  the  undisputed  books.  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Job,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  pro- 
bably Daniel,  there  seems  to  be  little  reason  to  doubt 
that  they  were  admitted  almost  at  once  into  the  sacred 
Canon.  At  what  time  the  others,  '  the  disputed,'  books 
received  recognition,  must  always  remain  more  or  less 
a  matter  of  obscurity,  and  the  most  different  opinions 
will  be  entertained. 

But  there  are  good  grounds  for  the  view  that  all  the  Canon  prac- 
books  eventually  included  in  the  Canon  had  obtained  lo^ZL^^"  ' 
some  sort  of  recognition  before  the  close  of  the  second 
cent.  B.C.,  and  before  the  death  of  John  Hyrcanus  II 
(105  B.C.).  These  grounds  may,  for  convenience'  sake,  be 
summarised  under  three  heads,  (i)  the  external  evidence, 
(2)  the  conditions  of  the  Jewish  Church,  (3)  the  character 
of  the  disputed  books. 

(i)  The  external  evidence  has  already  been  reviewed.  Before  \st 
We  gather  from  it,  that  the  generation  of  Josephus  re-  josephus] 
garded  the  Canon  as  having  long  ago  been  determined.  ^'^' 
For  Josephus  considered  the  Canon  to  consist  of  a  col- 


174    THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VIII.  lection  of  writings  to  which  a  continuous  series  of 
prophets  contributed,  from  Moses  until  the  reign  of 
Ahasuerus  ;  and  he  was  evidently  of  opinion  that  the 
Canon  had  been  closed  for  400  years,  and  that  the  Book 
of  Esther  was  the  last  thus  to  be  acknowledged. 

In  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  we  saw  that,  by 
a  very  possible  interpretation  of  one  passage,  the  Books 
of  Chronicles  were  already  regarded  as  the  recognised 
conclusion  of  the   Hebrew  Canon.      We  saw  that  the 
absence  of  quotation  from  'the  disputed'  books  in  the 
New  Testament  and  in  Philo  constituted  no  valid  argu- 
ment against  their  recognition  as  Scripture,  especially  as 
the  contents  of  Esther,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes 
scarcely  lent  themselves  to  the  Christian  writers  of  the 
first  century  A.D.  for  purposes  of  quotation.     We  noticed 
the  force  of  the  contention,  that  '  the  Scriptures '  in  the 
New  Testament  are  appealed  to  as  a  most  sacred  com- 
pleted   '  Corpus '  of  writings,  in   which  any  alteration 
would  be  most  improbable. 
No  change        (2)  To  the  carcful  student  of  Jewish  history  we  venture 
"[c.^i>rlba-    to  think  it  must,  on  reflection,  appear  exceedingly  un- 
^affatiT'^^'  likely  that  any  fresh  book  would  be  introduced  into  the 
foreign  and  Hcbrcw  Canon  of  Scripture  after  the  beginning  of  the 

domestic.  1      r  1        /^i     •      • 

first  century  B.C.  The  last  century  before  the  Christian 
era  witnessed  the  great  civil  war  in  Palestine,  which 
deluged  the  country  in  blood  (92-86  B.C.),  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem  by  Pompey  in  6'>^  B.  C,  the  reduction  of  Judea 
to  the  condition  of  a  Roman  province,  and,  lastly,  the 
tyranny  of  Herod  the  Great  (37  B.  C.-4  A.  D.).  The  religious 
and  social  life  of  the  Jews  during  all  this  disastrous 
period  was  marked  by  two  characteristic  features,  from 
both  of  which  we  might  gather  how  utterly  futile  any 
attempt  would  be  to  widen  or  alter  the  compass  of  the 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  I75 

already  accepted  Canon.     The  first  of  these  was  the  hos-  Ch.\p.  viii. 
tility  between  the  Pharisee  and  the  Sadducee  factions,  Pharisees 
which,  until  the  arrival  of  Pompey  upon  the  scene,  had  ^Jlf^^^^' 
divided  the  people  into  two  opposing  camps,  and  con- 
tinued long  afterwards  to  be  the  constant  cause  of  discord. 
During  the  whole  of  this  century,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  imagine  any  public  step,  intimately  connected  with 
the  most  sacred  associations  of  the  people,  which  would 
have  received  the  approbation  of  both  parties  ;    while 
the  action  which    commended  itself  to  but  one  party 
was  either  doomed  at  once  to  failure,  or,  if  attended 
with    success,    would    be    handed    down    by   tradition 
tainted  with  the  memory  of  a  partisan   achievement^. 
Secondly,  the   rise   of  the   s^reat    Rabbinic   schools    oi  Schools  of 

T-r.,1    1         \   r-1  .  1  •         the  Rabbins. 

Hillel  and  Shammai  was  a  guarantee  that  a  conservative 
attitude  would  be  maintained  towards  the  sacred  Scrip- 
ture. The  Doctors  whose  glory  it  was  '  to  make  a  fence 
about  the  law '  were  not  likely  to  advocate  the  introduc- 
tion of  fresh  writings  within  the  limits  of  the  Canon  ; 
nor,  if  one  were  bold  enough  to  advise  such  a  step,  would 

^  The  tradition  recorded  in  the  writings  of  the  Christian  fathers,  Pseudo- 
Tertullian  (adv.  Haer,  i),  Origen  {c.  Cels.  i,  49  and  Comm.  in  Matt.  xxii.  29, 
31-32),  and  Jerome  {in  Matt.  xxii.  31,  Contr.  Lticif.  23),  that  the  Sadducees 
only  accepted  the  canonicity  of  '  the  Law,'  rests  on  no  real  foundation.  It 
receives  no  support  from  Josephus  in  his  description  of  the  Sadducees ;  and 
the  fact  that  our  Lord  confuted  the  Sadducees  from  '  the  Law '  (cf.  Matt, 
xxii.  23-32),  which  has  sometimes  been  alleged  in  its  favour,  is  no  justifica- 
tion of  the  conjecture,  but  illustrates  the  regard  which  the  Jews  paid  to  any 
proofs  from  '  the  Law '  above  all  other  arguments  from  their  Scripture.  It 
is  probably  due  to  a  confusion  of  Sadducees  with  Samaritans,  or  to  a  mis- 
conception of  the  statement  that  the  Sadducees  rejected  the  tissue  of 
tradition  which  the  scribes  had  woven  around  the  precepts  of  the  law. 
According  to  another  more  probable  conjecture,  the  possibility  of 
the  admission  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  i  Maccabees  within  the  Canon  was 
frustrated  by  the  opposition  of  the  Pharisees,  who  raised  objections  to 
those  books,  because  they  contained  no  assertion  of  their  favourite  teaching 
upon  the  subject  of  the  resurrection. 


176  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  VIII.  he  have  escaped  vehement  attacks  from  rival  teachers. 
Their  work,  however,  was  almost  wholly  defensive  and 
negative  ;  their  object,  to  interpret  Scripture  as  they  had 
received  it.  We  should  not  anticipate  from  the  founders 
of  the  schools  of  Rabbinic  exegesis  any  favour  to  a  more 
liberal  treatment  of  the  Canon. 

There  is  certainly  no  probability  that  any  fresh  book 
would  have  obtained  admission  into  the  Canon  during  a 
century  distinguished  above  all  others  by  the  antagonism 
of  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees,  and  by  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Rabbinic  Schools. 
Even  (3)  The  character  of  the  books  themselves  is  not  un- 

book^iikeiy  favourable  to  their  having  been  received  in  the  second 
to  be  ad-  century  B.  c.  The  Books  of  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of 
Songs  were  popularly  ascribed  to  Solomon,  and  would 
naturally,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  works  for  which  room 
should  be  found  in  the  same  group  with  the  Book  of 
Proverbs.  It  was  not  as  if  they  had  only  recently  been 
composed.  The  more  recent  of  the  two  had  existed,  in 
all  probability,  if  we  may  judge  from  internal  evidence, 
at  least  for  more  than  a  century  before  the  Maccabean 
era ;  while  the  Song  of  Songs  was  the  most  ancient 
piece  of  poetry  not  yet  included  in  the  Canon. 

The  Book  of  Esther,  which  was  also  probably  com- 
posed in  the  third  century  B.  C,  was  evidently  at  one 
time  a  very  favourite  work.  Several  recensions  of  it 
existed  ;  and  at  a  time  when  the  deliverance  from  the 
foreigner  was  still  fresh  in  the  memories  of  the  Jews,  it 
perhaps  seemed  to  have  peculiar  claims  for  recognition. 
To  the  Jew  of  the  Dispersion,  it  brought  a  special  mes- 
sage of  Divine  Providence,  which  corresponded  to  the 
gentler  message  of  Ruth  to  the  proselyte  stranger. 

The  Books  of  Chronicles,  from  which  Ezra  and  Nehe- 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  177 

miah  were  severed,  would  very  naturally  be  appended  to  chap.  viii. 
the  books  of  Scripture.     The  important  genealogies  and 
the  special  features  of  its  history  in  connexion  with  the 
Temple  worship  make  it  improbable  that  such  a  narra- 
tive would  be  for  long  excluded. 

All  four  books  are  naturally  associated  with  groups 
that  had  been  received  without  hesitation  into  the  Canon. 
Both  Ecclesiastes  and  Song  of  Songs  seemed  to  deserve 
their  place  as  the  writings  of  Solomon  ;  and  the  Song,  in 
its  poetical  treatment  of  joy,  formed  the  complement  to 
the  plaintive  note  of  the  Lamentations.  The  Book  of 
Esther  seemed  to  fill  a  gap  in  the  history  of  the  exile, 
and  thus  to  follow  upon  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  the  Books 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  Books  of  Chronicles  received 
a  position  as  the  appendix  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  in 
the  same  group  with  Esther,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah. 

In  all  four  disputed  works,  the  claim  to  antiquity  was 
generally  conceded.  In  this  respect  they  would  find  a 
ready  acceptance  in  comparison  with  the  Wisdom  of 
Sirach  and  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees,  which  were 
avowedly  of  recent  composition. 

Now  if  all  the  books  of  '  the  Kethubim '  were  known 
and  received  in  the  first  century  A.D.,  and  if,  as  we 
believe,  the  circumstances  of  the  Jewish  people  ren- 
dered it  all  but  impossible  for  the  Canon  to  receive 
change  or  augmentation  in  the  first  century  B.  C,  we 
conclude  that  *  the  disputed  books  '  received  a  recognition 
in  the  last  two  or  three  decades  of  the  second  century 
B.C.,  when  John  Hyrcanus  ruled,  and  the  Jews  still 
enjoyed  prosperity.  The  hostility  between  the  Pharisee 
and  Sadducee  parties  had  then  not  yet  assumed  the  pro- 
portions of  an  open  conflict;  the  influence  of  the  Rabbinic 
Schools  was  then  still  in  an  early  stage. 
N 


l/< 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Chap.  VIII.  The  period,  then,  to  which  we  assign  the  formation  of 
'K^mlim'  the  Kethubim  is  the  interval  between  i6o  B.C., the  High 
\t!-!o^BC.  Priesthood  of  Jonathan,  and  105  B.C.,  the  death  of  John 
Hyrcanus.  According  to  this  view,  fully  two  hundred 
years  had  elapsed,  since  the  Scriptural  character  of 
the  last  books  had  been,  in  some  measure,  recognised, 
when  the  Rabbins,  in  the  generation  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  pronounced  their  official  sentence  upon  the 
limits  of  the  Canon.  It  was  then  that  the  Writings  we 
have  called  '  Disputed  Books,'  which,  from  the  peculiarity 
of  their  contents  and  teaching,  had  previously  exerted  little 
influence  upon  religious  thought,  had  been  little  used  in 
public  and,  possibly,  little  studied  in  private,  seemed  all 
at  once  to  receive  an  adventitious  importance.  Doubts 
were  expressed,  when  their  canonical  position  was  finally 
asserted.  But  no  sooner  were  such  difficulties  raised  arid 
scruples  proclaimed  and  protests  delivered  against  their 
retention  in  the  Canon,  than  eager  voices  were  lifted  up 
to  defend  the  character  of  writings  which,  after  all,  had 
long  been  recognised,  although,  in  comparison  with  the 
acknowledged  books  of  the  Kethubim,  little  valued  and 
rarely  made  use  of 

signijicaitcc  If  the  two  pcriods  I  have  indicated,  the  one  for  the 
periods  admission  of  the  last  group  into  the  category  of  Scrip- 
(160-105       ture  (160-105  B.C.),  the  other  for  the  final  ratification 

B.C.,  90-110  ^  sj  j-i 

A.D^.  of  the  completed  Canon  (90-110  A.D.),  be  approximately 
correct,  their  significance  to  the  Christian  student  should 
be  duly  considered. 

The  full  complement  of  Scripture  had  been  arrived  at, 
a  century  before  the  coming  of  Him  who  came  not  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil  '  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  '  (Matt. 
V.  17).     In  the  view  of  that  Revelation,  we  need   not 


THE   THIRD   CANON.  1 79 

wonder  at  the  absence  of  confirmation  in  the  New  Testa-  chap.  viii. 

ment  for  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Song  of  Songs.     The  ThTmbrcw 

new  Revelation  taught  a  better  spirit  than  that  of  the  ^^^^J;"""^ 

patriotic  fierceness  which  is  breathed  in   Esther.     The  Covenan/. 

despair  of  the  Preacher,  which  expressed  the  unsatisfied 

yearning  of  the  soul  for  its  Redeemer,  finds  no  echo  in 

the  books  of  the  New  Covenant.     The  Song  of  Songs 

told  of  the  beauty  of  earthly   affection  ;    but,    in    the  * 

presence  of  the  full  declaration  of  Divine  Love,  its  slight 

ray  was  fully  absorbed  like  that  of  a  candle  in  the  light 

of  the  midday  sun. 

The  final  determination  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  pre- 
ceded the  Church's  formal  acceptance  of  it  as  the  Canon 
of  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Covenant. 

It  was  thus  divinely  ordered  that  we  should  be 
enabled  to  know  the  exact  limits  of  those  Scriptures 
upon  which  has  rested  the  sanction  conveyed  by  the 
usage  and  blessing  of  our  Divine  Master,  and  of  which 
He  spake,  '  these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me ' 
(John  V.  39).  Thus,  too,  an  effectual  barrier  was  raised 
to  protect  the  Scriptures  of  the  Apostles  against  the  en- 
croachments of  any  unauthorised  additions.  The  use 
of  the  LXX  version  familiarised  the  Christian  Church 
with  writings  that  never  found  a  place  in  the  Hebrew 
Canon  ;  but,  through  the  action  of  the  Jewish  doctors  at 
the  close  of  the  first  cent.  A.D.,  there  was  never  any 
doubt  what  the  limits  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  were.  The 
only  question  which  seemed  to  admit  of  two  answers 
was,  whether  the  Christian  Church  should  regard  the 
limits  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  as  determining  the  com- 
pass of  the  Old  Testament. 


N  2. 


CHAPTER   IX. 


AFTER   THE   CONCLUSION   OF   THE   CANON. 


Chap.  IX. 

No  change 
in  Hebrew 
Canon. 


The  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture,  whose  gradual 
growth  we  have  traced  from  its  earliest  stage  to  its  final 
ratification,  has  been  preserved  by  the  Jewish  com- 
munity intact.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury A.  D.,  no  alteration  has  been  permitted  in  the  range 
of  its  contents,  which,  as  I  hope  I  have  shown,  had 
probably  remained  the  same  for  at  least  two  centuries. 
In  all  probability,  the  only  modifications  which  it  has  since 
received  from  Jewish  hands  were  changes  affecting  the 
order  of  the  books  of  the  Hagiographa  (the  present 
order  being  the  work  of  mediaeval  Jews,  and  dating, 
perhaps,  from  the  eighth  or  ninth  century),  and  the 
sub-division,  made  so  late  as  the  sixteenth  century  A.  D., 
of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah. 
Apocrypha  It  was  natural  that  the  Hebrew  Canon,  both  as  the 
\ianchurch.  Bible  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  as  the  Scriptures 
acknowledged  by  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles,  and  espe- 
cially sanctioned  by  their  use,  should  from  the  first  have 
been  adopted  by  the  Christian  Church.  But  the  pre- 
valent use  of  the  Septuagint  version  tended  quickly  to 
obliterate  the  distinction  between  the  books  of  the  He- 
brew Canon  and  the  books  which,  from  their  popularity 
among  the  Christians,  were  wont  to  be  often  publicly 
read    in    the    churches,    e.  g.    Ecclesiasticus,   Wisdom, 


AFTER   THE   CONCLUSION   OF   THE   CANON.        l8l 

I  Maccabees,  Baruch,  &c.  It  required  all  the  weight  chap.  ix. 
and  learning  of  such  men  as  Melito  (fcirc.  1 70),  Origen 
(t253),  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (t386),  Athanasius  (t373)j 
Ruffinus  (t4Jo),  Jerome  (t42o),  to  preserve  the  recol- 
lection of  the  true  Hebrew  Canon,  and  to  maintain  a 
preference  for  the  testimony  of  its  contents. 

Now,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  A.D.,  many  of  iv/iynoi 
the  books  which  we  term  'the  Apocrypha'  had  passed  ^^  ^"''•^^• 
into  general  use  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  were  con- 
stantly quoted  as  Scripture.  Is  there  no  analogous 
experience  to  be  recorded  in  the  Jewish  Church  ?  Did 
no  '  Apocrypha '  find  their  way  within  the  sacred  limits 
of  the  Hebrew  books  ?  And,  if  not,  how  was  the  exclu- 
sive character  of  the  Canon  so  successfully  secured  ? 

In  order  to  answer  these  questions,  we  must  recall  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  books  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha  were  admitted,  and  under  which  the  Canon  had 
been  closed. 

In  the  first  place,  the  impulse  which  led  to  the  Canonpro- 
formation  of  the  Hagiographa  had  been  received  from  i.  antiquity. 
the  religious  revival  of  the  Maccabean  era.  The  revolt 
of  Jewish  patriotism  against  the  predominance  of  Hel- 
lenism was  based  on  the  Revelation  of  Jehovah  to  His 
people  in  earlier  times.  Revelation,  it  was  thought,  had 
ceased  with  prophecy.  Scripture  was  the  embodiment 
of  past  Revelation,  its  claim  to  antiquity  a  recognised 
test  of  its  genuineness.  There  was  no  room  for  recent 
wrjtings,  there  was  no  confidence  in  their  authority. 

In  the  second  place,  each  of  the  books  admitted  into  2.  prestige 
the  Canon  was   invested  with   the  prestige  not  of  an- 
tiquity only,  but  also  of  connexion  with  an  honoured 
name.     Daniel,  the  latest  work,  was  considered  to  have 
been  written  in  the  Captivity,  and  this  supposition  was 


l82     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IX.  favoured  by  the  words  of  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20,  xxviii.  3  ; 
Ecclesiastes,  probably  the  next  most  recent,  was  ascribed 
to  Solomon.  The  Psalter  was  ascribed  to  David  ;  Pro- 
verbs and  the  Song  of  Songs  to  Solomon ;  Job  to  the 
patriarch  himself;  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah;  while 
Ruth,  Esther,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  were 
ascribed  to  the  famous  men  who  wrote  the  narrative  of 
their  own  day,  to  Samuel,  Mordecai,  and  Ezra. 
},-disHncHve      In  the  third  place,  each  of  the  books  that  were  ad- 

t caching. 

mitted  to  the  group  of  the  Hagiographa  presents  a 
distinct  phase  in  Jewish  religious  thought.  Each  has 
thus  contributed  to  the  representative  character  of  Jewish 
Scripture  some  new  feature.  Each  reflects  the  light  of 
divine  teaching  from  a  different  aspect  of  earthly  expe- 
rience. How  much  of  the  variety  and  the  many-sided 
sympathy  of  the  Old  Testament  books  arises  from  this 
group  !  The  Psalter,  Job,  Lamentations,  and  the  Song 
of  Songs,  give  us  Hebrew  poetry  of  strikingly  various 
complexion.  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  offer  two  very 
distinct  aspects  of  Jewish  Khokmah.  The  Book  of 
Daniel  shows  us  prophecy  in  its  final  apocalyptic  form. 
The  Books  of  Chronicles  reiterate  the  history  of  the 
monarchy  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Temple  wor- 
shipper. Ezra  and  Nehemiah  give  us  records  and 
extracts  from  memoirs  dealing  with  the  Return  from 
exile  and  with  the  foundation  of  Judaism.  Ruth  offers  an 
idyllic  picture  of  Israel  in  days  of  peace  ;  Esther  a  page 
of  fierce  intensity  from  the  traditions  of  the  exile.  In  a 
literature  so  varied  there  was  no  side  of  Hebrew  life  and 
thought  which  was  not,  so  to  speak,  claimed  and  selected 
to  add  its  influence  to  the  work  of  the  Jewish  Canon,  the 
work  of  educating,  teaching,  and  inspiring  the  *  Israel  of 
God.' 


AFTER   THE   CONCLUSION    OF   THE   CANON.       1 83 

Now  if  may  well  be  thought  that,  if  such  writings  chap.  ix. 
found  admission  in  the  second  century  B.  C,  on  the 
ground  not  only  of  their  intrinsic  merit  but  of  their  re- 
puted great  antiquity  and,  in  several  cases,  of  their  reputed 
connexion  with  some  great  personage  of  the  past,  the 
conception  of  their  antiquity  and  their  dignity  would 
grow  more  venerable  and  majestic  as  years  rolled  on. 
The  separation  between  them  and  all  other  writings 
would  widen  with  proportionate  rapidity.  It  could 
not  be  long  before  the  very  idea  of  ranking  any  other 
work  with  the  contents  of  the  Canon  would  be  treated  as 
little  short  of  blasphemy  by  the  Rabbinic  teachers. 

Only  in  the  case  of  two  extant  writings  is  there  any  EccUsias- 
probability  that  an  attempt  may  have  been  made,  in  [^Maccabees. 
some  quarters,  to  include  them  within  the  Canon,  i.  e. 
Ecclesiasticus  and  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees.  In 
both  instances  there  never  seems  to  have  been  any  real 
approach  to  success.  They  were  neither  of  them  re- 
commended by  the  claim  to  great  antiquity  ;  they  were 
neither  of  them  stamped  with  the  attributes  of  originality, 
or  inspired  with  the  gift  of  communicating  any  fresh  fund 
of  spiritual  life  and  force.  They  were  modern  ;  for  the 
Wisdom  of  Sirach  did  not  claim  to  be  earlier  than  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century  B.  C,  while  the  First  of 
Maccabees  dated,  at  the  earliest,  from  the  close  of  the 
same  century.  They  introduced  no  new  conception  of 
Israel's  religion  and  history ;  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach 
followed  very  closely  on  the  lines  of  Proverbs,  while  the 
First  of  Maccabees  was  but  a  faithful  chronicle  of  recent 
events. 

Although  they  were  never  admitted  within  the  Canon, 
they  undoubtedly  enjoyed  high  favour,  and  perhaps,  in 
the  opinion  of  some  Jews,  deserved  a  place  among  the 


184    THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IX.  ScHptures.  The  Wisdom  of  Sirach  is  twice  at  least 
quoted,  with  the  formula  of  citation  from  Scripture,  in  the 
'Talmud'  (Ecclus.vii.  10  inErubin,  6^  a,  and  xiii.  i5,xxvii. 
9  in  Baba  Kamma,  92  b).  In  a  passage  from  Bereshith 
Rabba  (c.  91),  it  is  said  to  have  been  quoted  as  canonical 
by  Simon  ben  Shetach,  brother  of  Queen  Salome,  in  the 
year  90  B.  C.  (For  '  other  Palestinian  authorities  '  see 
Delitzsch,  Gesch.  der  Jildischen  Poesie,  p.  20,  quoted  by 
Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon^  p.  282.)  For  three  centuries 
or  more  it  enjoyed  a  position  of  peculiar  honour, 
perhaps  of  quasi-authority,  but  without  the  prestige  of 
canonicity.  The  public  reading  of  it  is  expressly  for- 
bidden by  Rabbi  Joseph  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
[SaiiAOQ  b). 

The  First  Book  of  Maccabees  never  obtained  such  a 
degree  of  recognition.  But,  in  the  days  of  Josephus,  it 
was  regarded  as  the  one  trustworthy  Hebrew  source  of 
history  for  the  Maccabean  period,  and,  in  the  time  of 
Origen,  it  was  still  known  in  the  Hebrew  (cf.  Orig.  op. 
Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  25). 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  books  written  in  Greek 
would  stand  any  chance  of  admission  into  the  Palestinian 
Canon.  On  that  account  neither  the  Second  of  Macca- 
bees nor  Wisdom  could  ever  have  been  favoured,  or  even 
Eccins.  and  havc  been  thought  of,  in  such  a  connexion.  This  objec- 
^Hebr^\^  tion  did  not  exist  in  the  case  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  the 
the  First  of  Maccabees ;  and  the  statement  which  has 
sometimes  been  made,  that  they  failed  to  obtain  cano- 
nicity, because  they  chanced  to  be  no  longer  current  in 
Hebrew  at  the  time  when  the  Canon  was  being  con- 
cluded, is  in  all  probability  incorrect.  The  Book  of 
Ecclesiasticus,  probably,  not  only  existed  in  Hebrew, 
but   was   also  current   in   an  Aramaised  version,  from 


AFTER  THE   CONCLUSION   OF   THE   CANON.       185 

which  the  Babylonian  Jews  made  extracts  ^.  More-  Chap.  ix. 
over  it  was  known  to  Jerome,  either  in  the  original 
Hebrew  form  or  in  its  later  Aramaic  dress ;  and  that 
father  affirms  that  it  had  a  place  along  with  Ecclesiastes 
and  Song  of  Songs,  and  was  designated  by  the  title  of 
'  Parables.'  (Cf.  Praef.  m  libr.  Sal.,  '  Fertur  et  Jesu  filii 
Sirach  liber  .  .  .  quorum  priorem  Hebraicum  repperi,  non 
Ecclesiasticum,  ut  apud  Latinos,  sed  parabolas  prae- 
notatum,  cui  juncti  erant  Ecclesiastes  et  Canticum  Can- 
ticorum  ^.'j 

The  existence  of  the  First  of  Maccabees  in  Hebrew, 
in  the  time  of  Origen,  is  shown  by  the  title  which  he 
gives  to  it — lapjSrjd  ^alSavaUX  (op.  Eus.  H.  E.  vi.  25)  = 
possibly  '  the  Sceptre  of  the  Old  Man  are  the  Sons  of 
God  '  (^s  '•jn  i^no  D'^aic^),  or,  '  Prince  of  the  House  that 
God  buildeth  '  (^n  '•Jl^  NH^l  "itJ^),  or,  '  the  Prince  of  Evil 
(and)  the  Mighty  Men  '  (i'^D  \3n  ^T\^^  -w\  i.  e.  Antiochus 
and  the  Patriotic  Jews^.  Jerome  also  states  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  the  First  of  Maccabees  in  Hebrew 
{Prol.  Gal,  '  Machabaeorum  primum  librum  Hebraicum 
repperi '). 

It  was  not,  therefore,  due  to  their  being  extant  only  in 

^  On  the  Hebrew  quotations  to  be  found  in  Rabbinic  literature,  see 
Schechter,  3'^7£^zV^  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1891. 

^  It  was  recognised  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture  of  the  Nestorians,  who 
probably  derived  it  from  the  usage  of  Syrian  Jews.  (Cf.  Buhl.  K.  u.  T.  d.  A. 
T.  pp.  52-53.) 

*  The  usual  text,  that  of  Stephens,  ^apP^9  ^appavk  "EX,  itu  naiD 
hn  ':i  C'lttJ),  is  rendered  variously,  e.  g.  Grimm,  '  The  History  of  the  Prince 
(or  Princes)  of  the  Sons  of  God.'  Ewald  :  b«  '22  "i©  TQ*2itt?  =  ' the  sceptre 
of  the  Prince  of  the  Sons  of  God/  Derenbourg:  *?«  >:2  ^\0  nu  nCD  =  the 
Book  of  the  House  of  the  Prince  of  the  Sons  of  God.  (J/isf.  Pal.  pp.  450- 
451.)  Another  explanation  might  be  hazarded,  '7n('2D1D)'32-id  n'mD  = 
the  Prince  of  the  house  of  the  rebels  {or,  3  for  2,  chieftains)  of  God.  Geiger 
{l/rsehrz/t,p.  205),  bw^jniDnsT^U  'the  obstinacy  of  the  obstinate  against 
God '  =  the  Syrians.  ,.  - 

((inri7ERSIT7) 


l86  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IX.  a  Greek  translation,  that  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  First  of 
Maccabees  failed  to  find  their  way  into  the  Canon  at  the 
close  of  the  first  century  A.  D.  Nor  do  other  books  of  our 
'  Apocrypha,'  which  were  originally  composed  in  Hebrew 
— e.  g.  Tobit  (?),  Judith,  Baruch  i-iii.  8 — appear  ever 
to  have  been  put  forward  by  Jewish  writers  as  worthy  to 
take  rank  with  the  acknowledged  Scriptures  of  the  nation. 
The  fact,  however,  that  so  recent  a  book  as  Ecclesias- 
ticus should,  even  by  mistake,  be  referred  to  with  the 
formula  of  quotation  from  Scripture,  shows  that  the  tend- 
ency to  import  a  favourite  work  into  the  sacred  list  was  a 
real  danger  in  the  Jewish,  as  well  as  in  the  Christian, 
Church.  To  guard  against  such  a  profanation,  it  was 
incumbent  upon  the  Jewish  teachers  to  devise  some  plan, 
by  which  the  compass  of  the  Canon  should  be  rigidly 
preserved,  and  the  sanctity  of  a  book  maintained,  by 
careful  tradition.  For  this  purpose  a  strangely  artificial 
standard  of  canonicity  was,  more  Rabbinortim,  adopted. 

Defile  (he  j^  order  to  preserve  the  Scriptures  from  a  profane 
or  careless  handling,  the  Rabbins  laid  down  the  rule, 
that  to  touch  the  Sacred  Books  was  to  incur  ceremonial 
defilement.  The  results  of  this  rule  made  it  necessary 
that  the  books  should  be  kept  well  out  of  reach  of 
common  touch.  It  also  became  necessary  to  declare 
precisely  what  books  were  included  in  the  Canon  and 
would  therefore  communicate  defilement,  and  what  books 
could  be  handled  without  conveying  such  effects.  The 
question  of  canonicity  or  non-canonicity  soon  resolved 
itself  into  the  question,  whether  a  book  '  defiled  the 
hands,'  or  whether  it  did  not.  If  it  did,  it  was  because 
it  belonged  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture  ;  if  it  did  not,  it 
was  because  it  was  not  included  in  the  sacred  register  of 
'  the  Twenty-four.'     The  remembrance  of  the  disputes 


AFTER  THE  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  CANON.    1 87 

which  this  test  occasioned  is  preserved  in  a  treatise  of  chap.  ix. 
the  Mishnah  ( Yadaim,  or  'hands')^.  Without  an  explana- 
tion of  the  phrase,  '  defile  the  hands/  Jewish  criticisms 
upon  the  canonicity  of  books  of  Scripture  would,  indeed, 
convey  no  intelligible  meaning  ;  but,  provided  with  this 
explanation,  we  gain  a  conception  both  of  the  freedom 
with  which  questions  of  canonicity  were  discussed,  and 
of  the  finality  with  which  custom  had  practically  decided 
the  compass  of  the  Canon  before  the  Rabbinic  discus- 
sions in  the  first  and  second  centuries  A.  D. 

The  need  was  also  felt  of  other  phrases  to  complete 
the  Rabbinic  definition  of  'canonicity';  one,  which 
would  convey  the  idea  of  disputed  books  which  it  was 
not  advisable  to  read  publicly  as  Canonical  Scripture, 
and  another  for  undoubtedly  uncanonical  or  downright 
heretical  books,  which  it  was  advisable  to  eschew 
altogether.  The  former  idea  was  expressed  by  the  term  Disputed  o>^ 
^ gemizim!  or  '  hidden,'  which  was,  probably,  originally  boUs^" 
applied  to  worn-out  copies  of  the  rolls  of  Scriptures  that  (°'^"'— )• 
were  buried  or  consigned  to  a  special  chamber  designed 
for  their  reception  ^ ,  and  were  thus  put  out  of  sight  and 
separated  from  the  rolls  kept,  for  purposes  of  public 
reading,  in  the  'case'  or  *thek^^'  within  the  'ark'  of 
the  Synagogue.  In  this  category  of  books  preserved  as 
ancient,  but  not  adapted  for  public  reading,  the  Rabbins 
seem  to  have  placed  the  books  whose  canonicity  was 
disputed,  or  whose  interpretation  gave  rise  to  especial 
perplexity.  The  ^ gemizim'^  however,  according  to  this 
explanation,  were  quite  different,  in  spite  of  the  similarity 

^  Cf.  Yadaim,  iii.  5,  'All  the  Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands/ 

2  Called  the  '  Geniza.' 

^  «P^Pi,  p""*^,  Or}Krj.  The  'ark'  or  chest  was  the  n2'n  =kiPq}t6s,  cf. 
Afe^.  iii.  1,  Taan.  ii.  1-2,  Chrys.  OraL  adv.Jud.  vi.  7  {ed.  Migne,  Tom,  i. 
p.  914). 


I«»  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  IX.  in  the  derivation  of  the  word,  from  *  Apocrypha';  the 
name  denotes  doubt  rather  than  final  rejection.  As  there 
is  no  evidence  to  prove  that,  in  the  first  cent.  A.D.,  a  lesson 
was  read  from  the  Hagiographa,  we  must  suppose  that 
the  relegation  to  the  ' ge^tuzim^  of  'disputed'  books, 
such  as  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Songs,  (see  chap. 
X.)  implies  the  use  of  the  Hagiographa,  for  purposes  of 
'  Midrash,'  for  the  public  interpretation  (cf.  Luke  iv. 
17-21)  of '  the  Prophets  '  in  the  Synagogues. 

Extraneous       For  rejection  from  the  Canon,  the  term  *  extraneous/ 

or '  outside '  •  1     >  1         rT-.i  •   •  •  1     >     1        /^ 

Books  '  outside,    was  used.     The  writmgs    outside    the  Canon 

(□>2i:?m).  (^Sepharim  Khitzonim,  'books  that  are  outside')  corre- 
spond more  closely  to  our  conventional  conception  of 
'Apocrypha,' and  we  find  designated  by  this  term  the  First 
Book  of  Maccabees  ('  the  Megillah  of  the  house  of  the 
Asmoneans  '),  Ecclesiasticus  ('  the  Proverbs  of  the  Son 
of  Sira  '),  Wisdom  ('  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  ')  as  well  as 
books  by  heretics,  Sadducees,  Greek  Philosophers,  or 
Christians  ^  Accordingly  we  find  the  maxim  laid  down 
in  general  terms,  '  It  is  forbidden  to  read  in  the  "  ex- 
traneous "  books.'  {Kohel.  Rabba,  84  c,  quoted  by  Weber, 
Die  Lehren  des  Talmud^  Leipz.  1886,  p.  81.) 

But  the  employment  of  the  two  phrases  in  Rabbinic 
writing  is  not  free  from  obscurity.  The  distinction  which 
has  here  been  given  seems  to  offer  the  most  probable 
explanation  (cf.  Noldeke,  Die  alttest.  Liter atur^  1868, 
p.  238). 

*  Cf.  Sank.  xi.  1,  quoted  by  Fiirst,  Kanon  d.  Alt.  Test.,  p.  97.  But  see 
Gratz  (M  G.  W.J,  1886),  who  renders  :  '  R.  Akiba  said,  Whoso  readeth 
in  the  "  extraneous  "  (i.  e.  Judeo-Christian)  books,  hath  no  part  in  the  world 
to  come.  But  books,  like  Ben  Sira,  written  since  the  days  of  the  prophets 
a  man  may  read,  just  as  he  reads  a  letter.'     BuhU  p.  8. 


CHAPTER  X. 

LATER  JEWISH   TESTIMONY. 

After  the  time  of  Josephus,  we  must  look  to  Rab-   chap.  x. 
binic   literature   for   any   additional  Jewish   testimony.  Rabbinic 
Unfortunately,  very  little  value  can  be  assigned  to  the  ^^^^cHttcai 
testimony  of  the  Talmud,  and  of  Rabbinical  literature 
generally,  in  questions  of  historical  criticism.     The  Rab- 
binic writings  abound  in  matter  full  of  useful  illustration  ; 
but   the  chronological    uncertainty  which   envelops  so 
much  of  Talmudic  tradition,  the  fragmentary  and  dis- 
cursive  character  of  its  contents,  the  indefiniteness   of 
its  allusions,  the  technical  nature  of  the  subjects  which 
it  handles,  the  unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  text,  com- 
bine to  make   us  distrust  its  critical  worth,  wherever 
accuracy  of  date  is  requisite. 

It  is,  therefore,  advisable  to  treat  this  branch  of  the 
subject  separately,  and  at  no  great  length.  As  evidence 
for  our  special  purpose.  Rabbinical  statements  generally 
tend  to  confirm  the  conclusions  to  which  we  have  already 
come ;  but  their  principal  interest  consists  in  the  light 
which  they  throw  upon  the  attitude  of  Jewish  teachers 
towards  the  subject  of  the  Canon. 

Two  Titles  of  Scripture^ .  Two  of  the  commonest  titles 
of  the  Hebrew  Scripture,  employed  in  Rabbinic  literature, 
reveal  the  general  acceptance  of  the  Canon  both  in  the 

^  See  Excursus  E. 


190  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  X.  actual  extent  and  in  the  tripartite  arrangement,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  it  most  probably  possessed  at  the  close 
T/ieForir  of  the  first  ccntury  A.D.  The  one  title,  '  the  Four  and 
zveniy  -p^^^j^^y  Books  or  Holy  Writings,'  is  doubly  significant^. 
It  excludes  the  number  '  twenty-two,'  which,  with  its 
transference  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations  to  '  the  Pro- 
phets,' was  adopted,  probably  in  all  cases,  under  the 
influence  of  the  LXX  version^  (cf.  Josephus,  Melito, 
and  Origen) ;  and,  further,  as  a  title,  it  closes  the  door 
against  the  introduction  of  any  apocryphal  or  doubtful 
books.  The  importance  of  its  usage,  in  popularly  de- 
fining the  limits  of  the  Canon,  receives  an  instructive 
illustration  from  the  sentence,  'Whoso  bringeth  into  his 
house  more  than  the  Four  and  Twenty  Holy  Writings, 
brings  into  it  confusion  '  (cf.  Jer.  Sanhedr,  x.  1). 
Law,  Another  title,  which  became  the  regular  designation  of 

Writings:  the  Hebrew  Bible, '  The  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Writ- 
ings,'occurs  so  frequently  in  Rabbinic  writings,  that  its  sig- 
nificance may  easily  be  overlooked.  The  Jews,  by  adopt- 
ing this  somewhat  cumbrous  name,  testified  to  the  deep 
and  lasting  impression  produced  by  the  gradual  growth 
of  the  Canon.  They  acknowledged  that  their  Bible  was 
not  strictly  one  collection,  but  the  result  of  three  suc- 
cessive collections.  The  name  of  the  whole  is  threefold, 
and  of  such  a  kind  that  each  separate  title  could  be 
applied  with  justice  to  either  of  the  other  two  divisions. 
Thus,  although  the  name  '  Torah '  (vofxo^,  Law),  was 
specially  employed  of  the  first  division,  it  was  capable 
of  being  applied  to  the  whole  collection  (cf.  John  x.  34, 
xii.  34,  XV.  25, 1  Cor.  xiv.  21).    Again,  the  name  'Nebiim  ' 

'  For  the  early  Jewish  use  of  this  number,  cf.  Bad.  Taanith  8  a,  Kohel. 
Rabba,  fol.  116  a,  on  xii.  11, 
^  See  Chap.  xii. 


LATER  JEWISH   TESTIMONY.  191 

was  specially  employed  of  the  second  division  ;  but  we   chap.  x. 
may  remember  that  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  ascribed  to  one  who  was  a  prophet  (Deut.  xviii.  18, 
cf.  Ezra  ix.  11),  that  of  the  Psalter  to  another  (Acts  ii. 
30),  that  of  Daniel  to  another  (Matt.  xxiv.  15).     Accord- 
ingly, while  the  general  word,  *  Nebiim/  was  specially 
used  for  the   second  division,  it  might  have  been  used 
for   the   whole,   or   for   any,   of  the   writings   included 
in   the  range   of  the  Canon.     The  comprehensiveness 
of  these  two  terms   is  illustrated  by  the  common  use 
of  '  the  Law  and  the  Prophets '  for  the  whole  Scripture  '  the  Law 
where   '  the   Hagiographa '    were  clearly  not  excluded  Tropheis: 
(e.  g.  in  the  New  Testament,  Matt.  v.  17,  vii.  12,  xi.  13, 
xxii.  40,  Luke  xvi.  16,  29,  31,  xxiv.  27,  44,  Acts  xiii.  15, 
xxiv.  14,  xxviii.  23), 

The  third  title  *  Writings '  was  still  more  indefinite  in 
character.  It  may  be  observed  that  as  this  name  was 
adopted  in  Greek  (at  ypacjiai)  and  in  Latin  (Scriptura) 
for  the  whole  collection  of  sacred  books,  a  special 
designation,  '  Hagiographa '  (ayioypacpa),  had  to  be  in- 
vented for  the  remaining  group. 

The  whole  Hebrew  title,  therefore,  is  a  combination  of 
three  different  names,  each  applied  to  a  particular  section, 
but  each  capable  of  representing  the  sacred  character  of 
the  whole. 

The  original  separateness  of  the  three  divisions  is  thus 
reflected  by  the  threefold  name,  and  by  the  absence  of 
any  one  title.  The  formula  "j.in.  T.  N.  K.  (i.  e.  Thorah, 
Nebiim,  Kethubim)  belongs  to  a  later  (i.e.  the  Massoretic) 
phase  of  Hebrew  literature. 


We  turn  next  to  the  consideration  of  a  subject  which, 


192  THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap^x.  at  first  sight,  would  seem  to  be  of  great  importance.  The 
Rabbinic  canonicity  of  certain  books  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
cinonici^y  was,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  called  in  question,  at 
'^^  different  times,  by  Jewish  teachers.      In   the    case   of 

Ezekiel,  Jonah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Esther,  objections  were  made  by  various  Rabbins. 
Their  position  in  the  Canon  had  given  rise  to  scruples  or 
perplexity.  The  reasons,  however,  which  led  to  these 
adverse  criticisms  are  not  such  as  would  have  any  weight 
in  the  present  day.  They  reflect  the  subtlety  of  aca- 
demical discussion  more  than  the  anxiety  of  a  perplexed 
conscience.  As  a  rule,  they  illustrate  only  too  well  the 
character  of  the  Rabbinism  from  which  they  emanated. 
At  the  most,  they  testify  to  the  degree  of  tolerance  per- 
mitted in  the  range  of  controversy,  and  to  the  probability 
that,  at  an  earlier  date,  the  admission  of  certain  books 
into  the  Hebrew  Canon  had  met  with  considerable  oppo- 
sition, or  with  only  a  moderate  degree  of  approbation. 
Es-ekieL  Ezekiel.     The   difficulty  raised  concerning  this  book 

could  never  have  seriously  compromised  its  position  in 
the  Canon.  The  objection  was  felt  that,  in  several  points, 
it  apparently  contradicted  the  Pentateuch.  According 
to  one  tradition  {Menackoth,  45  a),  it  was  resolved  that, 
on  account  of  its  discrepancy  with  the  law  of  Moses  in 
the  matter  of  priestly  regulations,  it  was  necessary  to 
exclude  the  book  from  public  reading.  '  Elias,  when  he 
comes,  it  was  said,  will  explain  the  difficulty.'  At  this 
crisis,  Hananiah,  the  son  of  Hezekiah,  the  son  of  Garon, 
a  younger  contemporary  of  Hillel,  is  said  to  have  arisen 
and  to  have  succeeded  in  showing  by  ^  Haggadic  ^ '  inter- 

^  '  Haggada '  was  the  Rabbinic  term  given  to  doctrinal  exposition  ; 
Halaka  to  practical  exposition.  Parable,  legend,  and  allegory  entered 
largely  into  Haggada.  The  '  Mercaba '  or  '  Chariot '  vision  of  Ezekiel  was 
the  nucleus  of  the  Kabbala  or  esoteric  teaching  of  the  Jews. 


LATER  JEWISH   TESTIMONY.  I93 

pretatlon  that  the  apparent  discrepancies  could  be  recon-  chap.  x. 
ciled  (of.  Sabbath,  1^  b,  Chagigah,  13  ^,  b\  *  But  as  for 
Hananiah,  the  son  of  Hezekiah,  blessed  be  his  memory, 
— if  it  had  not  been  for  him,  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  would 
have  been  hidden  (i.e.  made  apocryphal,  withdrawn  from, 
public  reading,  placed  among  the  Genuzim\  because  its 
words  contradict  the  words  of  the  Thorah.  What  did 
he  do.^  They  brought  him  300  measures  of  oil;  and 
he  sate  down  and  explained  it.'  The  manner  in  which 
Hananiah  disposed  of  the  difficulty  was  so  satisfactory, 
that  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  was  afterwards  quoted  as  pos- 
sessing the  full  authority  of  the  Thorah  itself,  on  matters 
of  ceremonial  and  cleanliness  (cf.  Moed  Qatan,  5  a). 

It  is  very  possible  that  the  real  objection  felt  to  the 
public  reading  of  Ezekiel  was  due  to  the  great  obscurity 
of  certain  passages,  especially  the  visions  of  the  Chariot 
and  the  Temple  (ch.  i.  and  xl-xlviii).  The  contradictions 
to  the  law  of  Moses,  in  matters  of  detail,  added  to 
the  general  perplexity,  and  afforded  an  intelligible 
pretext  for  those  who  advocated  its  withdrawal  from 
public  reading  in  the  Synagogues.  The  introduction  of 
the  Haggadic  method  of  interpretation  was  the  means 
both  of  reconciling  contradictions  and  of  importing 
mystic  explanations  for  that  which  had  hitherto  been 
obscure.  Jerome  [Ep.  ad  PatiL,  Ep.  liii)  records  the 
existence  of  such  difficulties  experienced  by  the  Jews 
in  the  interpretation  of  these  passages,  and  reports  the 
custom  that  these  portions  were  not  to  be  read  until 
thirty  years  of  age  were  reached.  '  Tertius  principia  et 
finem  tantis  habet  obscuritatibus  involuta,  ut  apud 
Hebraeos  istae  partes  cum  exordio  Geneseos  ante  annos 
triginta  non  legantur.' 

Jonah.     The   adverse  testimony  is  here  very  slight, /^«a>4. 
O 


194    THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  X.  The  idea  that  the  book  contained  only  a  legendary  story 
may  possibly  have  induced  some  Jewish  scholars  to 
exclude  it  from  the  Canon,  and  may  account  for  the 
language  of  the  Midrash  Bammidbar  (c.  i8),  '  Lord  of 
fifty,  that  is,  of  fifty  books,  that  is,  the  twenty-four  books 
of  Holy  Scripture,  with  eleven  of  the  Twelve  (Minor 
Prophets),  excluding  the  Book  of  Jonah,  which  is  a 
book  by  itself,  and  with  the  six  Seders  (of  the  Mishnah), 
and  the  nine  Midrash  books  on  the  law  of  the  Priests  : 
behold  the  fifty.'  Without  pausing  except  to  point  out 
that,  as,  in  the  canonical  twenty-four  books,  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets  were  already  represented  as  one  book, 
there  was  no  need  for  them  to  be  counted  over  again, 
we  may  suppose  the  passage  to  indicate  a  doubt  whether 
Jonah  was  of  equal  historical  value  with  the  other 
prophets.  Kimchi  (a.  D.  1240),  in  the  introduction 
to  his  commentary  on  'Jonah,'  hints  at  the  same  sus- 
picion. But  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  re- 
cognition of  Jonah  as  a  book  of  Canonical  Scripture  was 
ever  seriously  imperilled. 
Proverbs.  Pvoverbs,  Any  doubts  that  may  have  arisen  as  to  the 
canonicity  of  this  book  probably  arose  from  its  being 
generally  classed  with  the  two  other  so-called  Solomonic 
works.  The  suspicions  in  which  Ecclesiastes  was  involved 
seem  to  have  spread  to  the  earlier  representative  of  the 
Khokmah,  or  Sapiential,  literature.  The  objections  to 
Proverbs  were  based,  partly  upon  verbal  contradictions 
in  the  book  itself,  partly  upon  the  ground  that  it  was 
supposed  to  favour  heretical  (query :  Sadducean)  pro- 
clivities. But  the  authority  of  the  book  was  never  in 
reality  seriously  compromised.  There  is  a  well-known 
passage  in  the  Bab.  Sabbath  ^o  b  :  '  Some  desired  also  to 
withdraw  (lit.  to  hide,  ganaz)  the  book  of  Proverbs  from 


LATER  JEWISH   TESTIMONY.  I95 

use,  because  it  contained  internal  contradictions/  but  the  chap.  x. 
attempt  was  abandoned  because  the  wise  men  declared, 
"  We  have  examined  more  deeply  into  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes  and  have  discovered  the  solution  of  the 
difficulty ;  here  also  we  wish  to  enquire  more  deeply."  * 
A  similar  account  is  given  in  Aboth  R.  Nathan  (cap.  i), 
'At  firsts  they  withdrew  Proverbs,  and  the  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes  from  public  use  (i.e.  placed  them 
among  the  Genuzim)^  because  they  spoke  in  parables. 
And  so  they  continued,  until  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  came  and  expounded  them.'  The  passages 
referred  to  in  Proverbs  are  ch.  vii.  7-20,  xi.  9.  From 
this  it  is  evident  that,  if  ever  its  canonicity  was  impeached, 
it  was  upon  the  same  internal  grounds  as  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes,  and  that  it  was  never  at  any  moment  in 
danger  of  being  absolutely  rejected.  The  removal  of 
doubts  about  Ecclesiastes  sufficed  to  allay  any  appre- 
hensions about  Proverbs. 

Ecclesiastes y  or  Koheleth.  In  the  case  of  this  book,  Ecclesiastes 
there  is  a  much  clearer  and  stronger  tradition,  recording 
the  hesitation  a^'to  its  admission  into  the  Canon.  The 
grounds  of  this  hesitation  are  stated  by  Jewish  tradition 
to  have  been,  (i)  that  the  book  contained  contradictory 
statements,  (2)  that  it  was  opposed  to  other  Canonical 
Scripture,  (3)  that  it  favoured  the  views  of  the  heretics 
(i.e.  Sadducees). 

The  first  of  these   charges  is   stated   in    Sab.  30  b  :  alleged  to  be 
'  The  wise  men  desired  to  "  hide  "  the  Book  Koheleth 
(i.e.  withdraw  it  from  public  use),  because  its  language 
was  often  self-contradictory.'     As  instances  were  given,  d)  self- 
'sorrow   is   better  than   laughter'  (vii.   3),   which   was /£>ry, 

^  e.g.  xxvi.  4  and  5,  '  Answer  not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly    ,     .     ,     , 
Answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly/ 

O  % 


196  THE   CANON  OF   THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

,chap.  X.  considered  to  contradict  *I  said  of  laughter,  it  is  to 
be  praised  '  (R.V.  *  mad  ';  ii.  2)  ;  '  Then  I  commended 
mirth '  (viii.  15),  which  was  considered  to  contradict 
*  (I  said)  of  mirth,  what  doeth  it  ? '  (ii.  2)  ;  '  Wherefore  I 
praised  the  dead  which  are  already  dead  more  than  the 
living  which  are  yet  alive  '  (iv.  2),  which  was  considered 
to  contradict  '  For  a  living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead 
lion '  (ix.  4). 

(2)  opposed  A  second  charge  is  found  in  the  same  context,  Sabbath 
30  a^  where  the  Preacher  is  asserted  to  contradict  the 
words  of  the  Psalter :  *0  Solomon,  where  is  thy  wisdom  ? 
w^here  thy  discernment  ?  Doth  it  not  suffice  thee  that 
many  of  thy  words  contradict  the  utterances  of  David, 
that  thou  contradictest  even  thyself.' 

(7)nnoriho-  ^  third  chargc  is  found,  in  combination  with  the 
second,  in  a  passage  of  the  Midrash  Vayyikra  Rabba,  c. 
28  :  '  They  sought  to  withdraw  (lit.  to  hide)  the  book 
"Koheleth"  because  they  found  in  it  words  which 
favoured  heresy,  and  because  Solomon  said,  "Rejoice,  O 
young  man,  in  thy  youth,"  &c.,  &c.  (Ecc.  xi.  9),  whereas 
Moses  said,  "  And  that  ye  go  not  about  after  your  own 
heart  and  your  own  eyes  "  (Num.  xv.  39).'  The  same 
charge  of  heresy  is  brought  on  account  of  the  words,  'What 
profit  hath  a  man  of  all  his  labour, '  &c.  (Ecc.  i.  3),  which 
were  considered  to  favour  the  '  heretics,'  a  phrase  that 
seems  to  have  been  intended  for  the  Sadducees,  or 
generally  those  who  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. Other  passages  illustrating  the  doubts  raised  by 
this  book  are  EduyotJi^^  v.  3  ;  Yadaiin,  iii.  5;  Midrash 
Koheleth  i.  3,    xi.    9.      Aboth.  R.   Nathan   (tit  supra)* 

^  Eduy.  5,  3,  R.  Simon  says,  *  In  three  cases  the  School  of  Shammai  makes 
easy,  and  the  School  of  Hillel  makes  difficult.  According  to  the  School  of 
Shammai,  Koheleth  defileth  not  the  hands;  the  School  of  Hillel  says,  It 
defileth  the  hands.' 


LATER  JEWISH   TESTIMONY.  I97 

These  charges  against  the  canonicity  of  Ecclesiastes  chap.  x. 
were  apparently  more  gravely  considered  than  those 
against  any  other  book  (see  below,  Meg,  7  a).  The 
'  Wise,'  however — by  whom  we  should  probably  under- 
stand the  scribes  and  principal  Rabbins  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries  A.D. — seem  to  have  investigated  the 
question  carefully.  They  found  that  the  difficulties 
were  all  capable  of  explanation.  Perhaps,  recourse  to 
the  methods  of  '  Haggadic '  interpretation  facilitated 
this  favourable  judgment.  Perhaps,  the  concluding  verses 
(xii.  13,  14),  which,  according  to  some  scholars,  were 
added  at  a  date  subsequent  to  its  actual  composition, 
were  able,  by  the  utterance  of  their  simple  faith,  to 
redress  the  balance  that  seemed  to  be  so  cruelly  dis- 
turbed by  the  expressions  of  despair  occurring  earlier  in 
the  book.  There  is,  however,  no  probability  in  the 
conjecture  of  Krochmal,  adopted  by  Fiirst^,  that  these 
concluding  verses  were  added  by  Hananiah  and  his 
colleagues,  in  order  to  justify  their  opinion  as  to  the 
canonicity  of  the  book,  and  to  declare  by  their  means 
that  the  contents  of  the  Canon  were  now  finally  com- 
pleted. 

The  Talmudic  passage  quoted  above  {Sabbath  30  b) 
records  the  conclusion  of  the  Wise  Men  :  'Why  did  they 
not  "  hide  "  it  ?  Because  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  it 
consist  of  words  of  Torah.'  With  this  we  should  com- 
pare Jerome's  statement  respecting  the  Jewish  doubts  as 
to  this  book.  He  says  in  his  comment  on  chap.  xii.  13 
14:  '  Aiunt  Hebraei  quum  inter  cetera  scripta  '^dXovaom?,  Jerome  on 
quae  antiquata  sunt  nee  in  memoria  duraverunt  et  hie  ^^^^^-^'^"•'•'5' 
liber  obliterandus  videretur  eo  quod  vanas  Dei  assereret 
creaturas  et  totum  putaret  esse  pro  nihilo,  et  cibum,  et 

^  Filrst,  Kan.  d.  A.T.  pp.  90-96. 


198     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  X.  potiim,  et  delitias  transeuntes  praeferret  omnibus  ;  ex 
hoc  uno  capitulo  meruisse  authoritatem  ut  in  divinorum 
voluminum  numero  poneretur,  quod  totam  disputationem 
suam,  et  omnem  catalogum  hac  quasi  drnKcc^aXatwo-et 
coarctaverit  et  dixerit  finem  sermon um  auditu  esse 
promtissimum,  nee  aliquid  in  se  habere  difficile  :  ut  scilicet 
Deum  timeamus  et  ejus  praecepta  faciamus.' 
The  Song  of  The  Soiig  of  Sougs-  The  acceptance  of  this  book  into 
the  Canon  possibly  implies  a  date  at  which  allegorical  in- 
terpretation— in  other  words,  the  influence  of  Haggadic 
teaching — had  come  into  use.  The  Canonicity  of  the 
Song  of  Songs  could  thus  be  defended  on  other  grounds 
besides  that  of  its  being  a  writing  of  Solomon,  and  in 
spite  of  the  objections  that  were  felt  on  account  of  the 
primarily  secular  character  of  its  contents.  But  its 
reception  did  not  pass  without  opposition.  At  least,  this 
is  the  natural  explanation  of  the  vehement  anxiety  with 
which  Jewish  tradition  has  insisted  upon  its  sanctity. 
Thus,  after  saying  that  '  all  the  Holy  Scriptures  defile 
the  hands,'  it  is  expressly  added,  as  if  to  meet  an  obvious 
criticism,  that  '  the  Song  of  Songs  and  Koheleth  defile  the 
hands  '  ( Yad.  iii.  5).  In  another  passage  [Meg.  7  d)^  we 
find  an  interesting  allusion  to  the  variety  of  opinion  held 
upon  this  book,  and  to  the  way  in  which  it  was  expressed  : 
'  Rabbi  Meir  saith, ''  The  book  Koheleth  defileth  not  the 
hands,  and  with  respect  to  the  Song  of  Songs  there  is 
difference  of  opinion."  Rabbi  Joshua  saith  on  the  other 
hand,  "■  The  Song  of  Songs  defileth  the  hands,  and  with 
respect  to  Koheleth  there  is  dispute."  Rabbi  Simeon 
saith,  ^'  Koheleth  belongeth  to  the  things  which  the 
school  of  Shammai  maketh  easy  and  the  school  of  Hillel 
maketh  difficult ;  but  the  Books  of  Ruth,  the  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Esther  defile  the  hands."  That  is  what  Rabbi 


LATER  JEWISH   TESTIMONY.  199 

Joshua  said.     We  are  taught  that  Rabbi  Simeon  ben    chap.  x. 
Menasiah  saith, "  Koheleth  defileth  not  the  hands,  because 
it  containeth  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon." ' 

Most  noticeable  of  all  is  the  passage  in  which  the 
sentence,  '  All  Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands,  even 
the  Song  of  Songs  and  Koheleth,'  is  discussed.  '  R.  Juda 
saith :  *'  The  Song  of  Songs  defileth  the  hands,  but 
Koheleth  is  disputed."  R.  Jose  saith  :  "  Koheleth  defileth 
not  the  hands,  and  the  Song  of  Songs  is  disputed."  R. 
Simeon  saith  :  ''  Koheleth  belongeth  to  the  things  which 
the  school  of  Shammai  maketh  easy  and  the  school  of 
Hillel  maketh  difficult."  R.  Simeon  ben  Azai  said  :  "  I 
received  it  from  the  seventy-two  Elders,  that  on  the  day 
when  R.  Eleazar  ben  Azariah  was  made  President  (i.e. 
in  the  school  at  Jamnia),  it  was  determined  that  the  Song 
of  Songs  and  Koheleth  defile  the  hands."  R.  Akiba  said, 
"  God  forbid  that  any  man  of  Israel  should  deny  that  the 
Song  of  Songs  defileth  the  hands  ;  for  the  whole  world  is 
not  equal  to  the  day  on  which  the  Song  of  Songs  was 
given  to  Israel.  For  all  the  Scriptures  are  holy,  but  the 
Song  of  Songs  is  the  holiest  of  the  holy  ;  and  if  there  is 
dispute,  it  is  groundless  except  in  the  case  of  Koheleth  " ' 
( Vad.  iii.  5).  Rabbi  Akiba's  encomium  upon  such  a  book 
suggests  an  allusion  to  some  serious  objection.  It  is 
as  if  at  the  weakest  link  of  the  chain  it  was  deemed 
politic  to  make  the  loudest  assertion  of  confidence  in  its 
strength. 

Esther.  The  Book  of  Esther  gave  rise  to  disputes  Esther. 
among  the  Rabbins  of  a  similar  nature.  Like  the  Book 
of  Ecclesiastes,  it  was  probably  among  the  last  to  be 
received  as  canonical.  This  fact  alone  would  probably 
account  for  some  of  the  opposition  which  it  encountered. 
But  a  more  serious  ground  for  questioning  its  right  to  be 


200  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

regarded  as  Scripture  was  found  in  its  apparently  inten- 
tional omission  of  any  reference  to  the  Divine  Name. 
It  is  this  peculiarity  which  no  doubt  occasioned  the 
questionings  implied  in  the  following  extracts  from 
Jewish  tradition  [Meg.  "ja).  (a)  '  Esther  (i.  e.  the  book) 
sent  to  the  Wise  the  following  entreaty,  "Write  me 
in  the  Book  (?  the  Canon)  for  all  ages."  They  sent 
to  her  in  answer,  "  (It  is  written),  Have  not  I  written 
three  things?'"  i.e.  three  and  not  four.  The  quotation  is 
from  Prov.  xxii.  20,  where  the  Hebrew  text  is  doubtful 
and  the  meaning  obscure.  The  doubtful  word  (translated 
in  the  R.V.  'excellent  things^,'  marg.  'heretofore/  ac- 
cording to  a  variant  reading)  is  accepted  by  the  Jewish 
tradition  to  mean  '  three,'  and  to  contain  an  allusion  to 
the  '  Law,  Prophets,  and  Writings.'  The  three  classes  of 
Scripture  are  complete,  say  the  Wise  men  ;  there  is  no 
warrant  for  making  a  fourth  class  in  order  to  receive  the 
Book  of  Esther  :  it  is  written, '  I  have  written  three.' 

{b)  '  Rabbi  Jehuda  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel, "  The 
book  of  Esther  defileth  not  the  hands."  Is  then  the  Book 
of  Esther  not  inspired  ?  Could  Samuel  have  thought 
this?  He  said  however,  Is  it  inspired  ?"  Answer.  "  He 
understood,  it  is  given  for  reading,  and  is  not  for 
writing." ' 

{c)  '  We  are  taught :  Rabbi  Eleazer  saith,  "  The  Book 
of  Esther  is  inspired,  for  it  is  said  (Esth.  vi.  6),  '  Now 
Haman  said  in  his  heart'  (i.e.  which  could  be  known  to 
none  but  the  Holy  Spirit)."  Rabbi  Akiba  saith,  "  The 
Book  of  Esther  is  inspired  ;  for  it  is  said  (Esth.  ii.  22), 
'  And  the  thing  was  known  to  Mordecai.'"  Rabbi  Jos.se 
ben  Durmascit  said,  "  The  Book  of  Esther  is  inspired  ; 
for  it  is  said  (Esth  ix.  10),  *  But  on  the  spoil  they  laid  not 

1  Kethib,  DiU''b«;  Qeri,  D'xp)^. 


LATER   JEWISH   TESTIMONY.  201 

their  hand.'  "     Samuel  said,  "  Had  I  been  there,  I  would    chap.  x. 
have  said  one  word,  which  surpasses  all ;  it  is  said  (Esth. 
ix.  27),  '(the  Jews)  ordained  and  took  upon  them'  (that 
is,  that  was  ordained  above  in  heaven,  which  they  took 
upon  them  on  earth) ".'' 

Such  sayings  imply,  that  there  had  been  some  hesi- 
tation in  accepting  the  canonicity  of  the  book.  But 
the  difficulties  that  had  been  felt,  vanished  before  the 
application  of  these  strange  methods  of  interpretation. 
According  to  the  tradition,  '  The  Wise  men  ceased  not 
discussing  the  matter  backwards  and  forwards  until 
God  enlightened  their  eyes,  and  they  found  it  written  in 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Writings.'  (See  also  the 
next  chapter.) 

Such  are  some  of  the  chief  objections  that  Jewish 
scholars  are  reported  to  have  raised  against  the  canonicity 
of  certain  canonical  books.  The  reader  will  form  his  own 
judgment  as  to  the  amount  of  weight  to  be  attached  to 
their  evidence.  It  cannot,  however,  in  any  way  qualify 
the  results  of  our  enquiry  into  the  history  of  the  Canon. 
The  earliest  Jewish  traditions  that  have  been  quoted  were 
probably  not  committed  to  writing  until  the  close  of  the 
second  cent.  A.  D.  We  have  no  means  of  verifying  the 
facts  preserved  by  such  oral  tradition,  or,  in  case  of  inter- 
polation, of  discriminating  between  the  original  tradition 
and  the  glosses  which  it  may  have  acquired  in  the  process 
of  transmission.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  say  for 
certain,  how  far  these  strange  academical  discussions, 
turning  wholly  on  subjective  criticism,  accurately  repro- 
duce the  actual  controversies  which  closed  the  Canon,  or 
resulted  from  its  conclusion.  They,  at  least,  reflect  the 
spirit  in  which  the  Jewish  doctors  met  the  real  and 
imaginary   difficulties    which   they   and    their  disciples 


202  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  X.    delighted  to  multiply,  and  gloried  in  either  surmounting 

or  evading. 
Canonictty        Perhaps  the  most  important  thing  for  us  to  observe 
posed.  is  that  the  discussions  of  the  Jewish  doctors,  whether 

serious  controversies  or  only  academic  displays  of  verbal 
adroitness,  presuppose  the  existing  canonicity  of  the  dis- 
puted books 


CHAPTER    XL 

THE   HEBREW   CANON  IN   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 

Only  in  one  instance  do  the  objections,  which  had  chap,  xi. 
been   felt  against  the  inclusion   of  a   book  within   the 
Canon,  appear  to   have   survived  for  long,  or  to  have 
resulted,  in  some  quarters,  in  its  actual  withdrawal  from 
the  list  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Opposition  to  the  Book  of  Esther  appears  to  have  Esther  ex 

-  X  •   1     1  1  r  eluded  from 

taken  this  open  form.  Its  withdrawal  may,  oi  course, /«^//<:  «j^, 
have  only  expressed  a  local  prejudice  due  to  the  teach-  ^°'^^^^- 
ing  of  some  influential  Rabbi.  But  the  fact  of  the  book 
having  been  actually  excluded  from  a  Jewish  list  of 
Canonical  Scripture  merits  attention.  For,  although  we 
learn  of  it  from  a  Christian  source,  the  position  of  the 
Book  of  Esther  in  certain  other  Christian  lists,  which 
profess  to  give  the  contents  of  the  Hebrew  Canon, 
indicates  the  suspicion  with  which  it  was  apt  to  be 
regarded. 

Melito,  the  Bishop  of  Sardis  (circ.  1 70  A.  D.),  sent  to  a  Meiito,  drc. 
friend  a   list  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,    which  ust. 
he  professed  to   have  obtained  from  '  accurate  enquiry,' 
when  travelling  in  the  East,  in  Syria  (ap.  Euseb.  H.  E. 
iv.  26  ^).     Its  contents  agree  with  those  of  the  Hebrew 

^  On  Melito's  list,  see  Chap,  xii  and  the  Table  in  Excursus  C.  The  words 
with  which  he  prefaces  it  are,  di/eA^wj/  ovv  eis  r^v  dvaToXrjv,  koi  ecos  rod 
Toirov  ycvofxcvos  €v9a  tKrjpvxOrj  koX  kirpaxOi]  koi  dicpiISm  /xaOuv  rcL  Trjs  naXaids 
Siad'^/cijs  Pifikia,  vtiord^as  errffi^d  aoi.     {Ap.  Eus.  ff.  E.  iv.  26.) 


204     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

chap^xi.  Canon,  save  in  the  omission  of  '  Esther.'  For  '  Lamen- 
tations '  is  doubtless  to  be  reckoned  with  Jeremiah,  and 
Nehemiah  with  Ezra.  Was  the  omission  of  Esther 
accidental  ?  Or  was  it  that  the  book  had  either  been 
absolutely  set  aside  as  uncanonical,  or  been  temporarily 
withdrawn  from  '  reading  '  as  a  doubtful  work  ? 
E^^h^  (\b  (^^  ^^^  supposition  that  the  name  has  only  accidentally 
accident,  dropped  out  from  the  list^  may  fairly  be  claimed  to  be 
not  altogether  improbable.  In  Origen's  list  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  the  Minor  Prophets  are  thus  ac- 
cidentally omitted  ;  and  it  is  certainly  very  possible  that 
in  Melito's  list  the  name  of '  Esther '  may  similarly  have 
been  passed  over,  either  by  the  inadvertence  of  a  scribe, 
or  by  the  careless  confusion  of  the  name  '  Esther '  with 
that  of  '  Esdras,'  after  which  book  it  appears  in  several 
other  lists,  e.g.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (f  386)  and  Epiphanius 
(t  403).  But  accident,  though  very  possible,  cannot  be 
accepted  as  the  most  probable  reason  for  the  omission. 
t-^compate  (^)  ^hat  it  was  intentionally  left  out  by  Melito's  Jewish 
later  Christ-  informants,  offers  the  more  natural  explanation.  For  the 
same  unfavourable  opinion,  which  the  omission  would 
denote,  is  not  only  expressed  in  the  Rabbinical  discussions 
mentioned  in  the  previous  chapter,  but  is  also  implied 
in  the  position  allotted  to  the  book  in  other  Christian 
writings,  which  claim  to  reproduce  the  contents  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon.  In  the  list  of  the  Hebrew  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  given  by  Origen  (f  253),  the 
Book  of  Esther  stands  last.  In  the  list  of  Athanasius 
(t373)  i^  his  Festal  Epistle  (xxxix),  written  in 
365  A.D.,  the  book  '  Esther '  is  not  classed  among 
the  canonical  writings,  but  is  found  in  the  group  of 
the  other  books  that  were  to  be  read  for  instruction, 
i.e.  the  Wisdom    of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach, 


HEBREW   CANON   IN   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.     205 

Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  '  the  DIdache,'  and  *  the  Shepherd.'  chap.  xi. 
In  the  so-called  list  of  Amphilochius,  Bishop  of  Iconium 
(circ.  380  A.D.),  the  Book  of  '  Esther '  is  not  included 
among  the  Old  Testament  writings  ;  but,  at  the  end  of 
the  list  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  it  is  stated  that 
'  some  add  the  Book  of  Esther  ^'  In  the  list  of  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  (f  391)  it  is  omitted  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writings  ;  in  the  list  of  Leontius  (circ.  590)  it  is  not 
mentioned  among  the  '  twenty-two  '  of  the  Canon,  while 
in  that  of  Nicephorus  (814)  it  is  not  mentioned  among 
'  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Testament,'  but  among 
the  '  Antilegomena '  of  the  Old  Testament  along  with 
the  Maccabees,  Wisdom,  Sirach,  Proverbs  of  Solomon, 
Judith,  Susanna,  and  Tobit. 

It  is  difficult  to  feel  certain  whether  the  unfavourable  Causeof 
verdict  of  these  Christian  fathers  was  based  upon  Jew-  °'^^^^^°'^- 
ish  objections  or  Christian  prejudices.  In  Melito's  days, 
the  Hebrew  Canon  had  evidently  been  decided  by  the 
Jews.  The  position  of  the  Book  of  Esther  in  it  was 
fully  assured.  How  then  can  we  account  for  its  omission 
in  Melito's  list  ?  Possibly,  on  the  ground  that,  objections 
being  felt  to  the  Fast  and  Feast  of  Purim,  it  was  thought 
advisable,  at  least  in  the  locality  where  Melito  prosecuted 
his  enquiry,  to  discontinue  the  public  use  of  the  Book, 
upon  the  authority  of  which  those  anniversaries  were 
observed.  Thus,  it  may  have  been  objected  that  the 
day  of  Haman's  murderous  project  (Esth.  iii.  13),  which 
seems  to  have  been  commemorated  by  a  fast  (Esth.  ix.  31^), 
coincided  wnth  the  Day  of  Nicanor  (2  Mace.  xv.  36),  the 
13th  day  of  Adar,  a  Feast-day,  on  which  fasting  was 

^  lovroi'i  Ttpoa^-^Kpivovai  r^v  'EaOrfp  rives  {Iambi  ad  Seleuc.  ap  Greg.  Naz. 
Carm.  Sect.  ii.  vii.). 
^  The  reference  to  fasting  in  Esther,  ix.  31  is  omitted  in  the  LXX. 


206  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XI.  prohibited  (cf.  Megillath  Taanithj  xii.  30 :  Texte  de  la  M.  T., 
Derenbourg,  Hist,  de  la  Pal.  pp.  442-444).  Or,  it  may 
have  been  objected,  that  the  Feast  of  Purim  was  not  of 
ancient  origin  ;  and  that  its  celebration,  having  certain 
resemblances  to  the  usages  of  a  Persian  Feast  [Furdigan), 
gave  occasion  to  misunderstanding,  and  was  apt  to  be 
Esther's       coufoundcd    with  heathen  practices  \      For  some  such 

place  among  r         i  •         i 

'  Genusim:  rcason,  or  for  the  simpler  reason  that  the  book  had  locally 
fallen  into  disrepute  on  account  of  its  omission  of  the 
Sacred  Name,  Esther  was  not  included  in  the  list  that  the 
Bishop  of  Sardis  obtained  from  his  enquiries  in  the  East. 

In  all  probability,  the  Book  had,  temporarily  and  only 
locally,  been  placed  among  the  Genuzim.  For  reasons 
which  have  not  transpired,  it  was  withdrawn  from  public 
use.  But  it  was  not  placed  amongst  the  Khttzdmm.  It 
was  *  disputed,'  not  '  rejected.'  This  distinction,  on  the 
part  of  Syrian  Jewish  converts,  a  Greek  Bishop  would 
scarcely  be  able  to  appreciate. 

To  Christian  readers  the  character  of  the  book  may 

very  naturally  have  given  rise  to  difficulties.     Its  spirit 

and  teaching  seemed  to  have  little  in  common  with  the 

Not  under-    Ncw  Tcstamcut.     The   knowledge  that  its   canonicity 

stood :  pre-  .  - ,  i     i  i         t  i  ,     t 

judicena-  was  uot  umvcrsally  accepted  by  the  Jews,  would  be 
%uated7y  Guough  for  thosc  who  wcrc  prejudiced  against  it.  Some, 
tradition,  ^qq^  ^]^q  appear  to  advocate  its  exclusion  from  the  list  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  merely  repeat  the  opinion 
of  previous  writers  without  attempting  to  investigate  the 
question  afresh.  Jerome,  in  his  Preface  to  Esther,  records 
no  adverse  Jewish  opinion.  Aphraates,  circ.  400^  who  was 
well  instructed  in  Hebrew  tradition,  omits  no  book  from 
the  Hebrew  Canon  (Buhl).    We  may  fairly  assume  from 

^  See  Lagarde  (^Gesam.  Abhandl.,  quoted  by  Robertson  Smith,  O.T.J.C., 
p.  161  sq.). 


HEBREW   CANON    IN    THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.      207 

what  we  know  of  Patristic  methods,  that  the  list  of  chap.  xi. 
Melito,  in  the  History  of  Eusebius,  will  account,  in  great 
measure,  for  the  exclusion  of  Esther  from  late  Christian 
lists  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  On  such  a  question,  the 
Fathers,  who  knew  no  Hebrew,  were  wont  to  rely  on 
earlier  tradition,  and  seek  no  fresh  testimony  ^. 

But  the  adverse  evidence  of  the  Fathers  quoted  above, 
although  it  illustrates  the  independence  of  local  Jewish 
opinion  upon  the  Canon,  is  not  sufficient  to  shake  our 
confidence  in  the  claim  of  Esther  to  its  place  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures. 

The  only  other  important  variations  in  the  contents  ^,  Origen 

1 .      .  r  •       •  '1  1  r       1        (t  ^'''3)  omits 

as  distmct  from  the  variations  in  the  order,  ai  \si^  uin.Proph. 
Hebrew  Canon,  as  reported  by  a  Christian  father,  "^^Epistu: 
occur  in  the  list  of  Origen  {ap.  Euseb.  H.  E,  vi.  25),  in 
which  are  to  be  noticed  the  omission  of  the  Twelve  Minor 
Prophets  and  the  inclusion  of  a  work  entitled  '  The 
Epistle'  along  with  Jeremiah.  The  omission  of  the 
Twelve  Prophets  is  undoubtedly  due  to  an  inadvertency, 
either  on  the  part  of  Origen  himself,  or  of  Eusebius,  or  of 
some  copyist.  The  addition  of '  The  Epistle,'  by  which 
we  must  probably  understand  the  Book  of  Baruch, 
indicates  that  Origen  gives  the  contents  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  as  they  were  represented  in  the  LXX  version. 

^  On  the  influence  of  Eusebius  upon  the  lists  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  and 
Amphilochius,  see  Westcott,  Bible  in  the  Churchy  pp.  167. 

^  We  ought,  perhaps,  to  mention  the  omission  of  Chronicles  in  the  earliest 
Syrian  Version,  The  books  of  Chronicles  are  not  commented  on  by  Ephrem 
Syrus  ;  while  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  seems  to  have  excluded  Job,  Esther, 
and  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  It  does  not  appear  probable  that  such  omissions 
were  based  on  any  tradition  of  a  shorter  Hebrew  Canon.  Rather,  they  re- 
flect the  working  of  somewhat  arbitrary  subjective  principles.  (Cf.  Buhl,  pp. 
52,  53).  Is  not  the  omission  also  of  Esther,  in  Melito's  list,  to  be  attributed 
to  the  influence  of  similar  doubts,  entertained  with  as  little  historical  reason, 
in  the  Syrian  Church  ? 


208  THE   CANON    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XI.  There  is  no  sign  of  the  Book  of  Baruch  having  ever 
found  general  acceptance  in  the  Jewish  Synagogue.  The 
possibility  may  be  conceded,  that  Origen  is  reporting 
a  local  practice.  But  it  is  more  probable  that,  when  he 
mentions  Jeremiah  among  the  Hebrew  books,  he  has  in 
his  mind  the  expanded  form  in  which  it  appeared  in  his 
Greek  Bible  ;  and,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter, 
this  explanation  is  confirmed  by  the  order  in  which  he 
enumerates  the  books.  The  subject  of  the  order  of  the 
books  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  belongs  to  a  distinct  enquiry ; 
but,  as  it  is  not  without  interest  for  our  subject,  we 
shall  touch  upon  it  briefly  in  the  following  chapter. 
'Apocrypha'  Thc  history  of  the  admission  of  the  books  of  the 
hisfofy'of  '  Apocrypha '  into  the  Greek  and  Latin  copies  of  the  Old 
Lxx,  notof  Testament  lies  outside  the  scope  of  the  present  work. 
Scriptures.  The  Christian  Church  of  the  Apostolic  age  accepted  the 
Palestinian  Canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  its  entirety. 
The  Palestinian  Canon  is  that  whose  growth  and  forma- 
tion we  have  endeavoured  to  trace.  It  is  that  which  our 
Lord  and  the  Apostles,  by  their  usage,  sealed  for  the 
blessing  and  divine  instruction  of  all  ages  to  come.  It  is 
that  of  whose  compass  and  integrity  we  have  assurance 
from  the  unalterable  character  of  Hebrew  tradition,  as 
well  as  from  the  combined  testimony  of  Melito,  of 
Origen,  of  Athanasius,  of  Jerome,  and  of  others,  who  con- 
tended for  the  purity  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  the 
only  true  Canon  of  the  Old  Covenant. 

The  intermixture  of  the  so-called  Apocryphal  books, 
and  their  quasi-recognition  in  the  Christian  Church,  con- 
stitute the  theme  of  a  separate  study  ^.  The  Apocryphal 
Books  never  had  a  place  (see  Chap,  x.)  in  the  Palesti- 
nian Canon.     The  position  which  they  obtained  among 

^  See  Westcott's  Bible  in  the  Church. 


HEBREW   CANON   IN   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH.     209 

Christians  after  the  2nd  century,  was  due  to  the  prevalent  Chap.  xi. 
ignorance  of  Hebrew,  and,  as  a  consequence,  to  the 
ignorance  of  the  true  h'mits  of  that  Jewish  Bible,  which 
the  Apostles  had  sanctioned.  Defective  acquaintance 
with  the  Hebrew  tradition  and  with  the  Palestinian 
Canon  is  answerable,  in  the  main,  for  the  additions 
which  were  made  in  the  Greek  Bible  and  in  the  versions 
derived  from  it.  When  once  additional  books  were  ac- 
cepted in  the  list  of  the  LXX,  the  enormous  influence  of 
that  Version  caused  them  to  be  regarded  with  a  venera- 
tion, which  only  the  more  learned  men  in  the  Church 
could  keep  distinct  from  that  which  was  due  to  the 
inspired  and  holy  writings  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  of 
Scripture,  and  to  them  alone,  as  the  Bible  of  the  Jewish 
Church  on  which  our  Saviour  set  the  seal  of  His 
authority. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  BOOKS. 


The  Tri- 
partite 
Division  : 


Jewish  ex- 
planations 
inadequate. 


Hitherto  I  have  designedly  abstained  from  touch- 
ing upon  the  subject  of  the  arrangement  of  the  books, 
except  so  far  as '  the  tripartite  division '  of  the  Canon,  and 
the  position  of  the  books,  Ruth  and  Lamentations,  have 
necessarily  claimed  attention  in  connexion  with  the 
historical  argument. 

If  that  historical  argument  has  been  as  fully  supported 
by  evidence,  as  I  think  it  has,  it  will  long  ago  have 
become  plain  to  the  reader,  that  '  the  tripartite  division ' 
gives  no  arbitrary  grouping,  but  is  a  trustworthy  witness 
and  an  invaluable  memorial  of  the  historical  growth  and 
gradual  development  of  the  Canon. 

The  arrangement  of  the  Nebiim  and  Kethubim  is  not 
chronological,  nor  is  it  according  to  subject-matter.  If 
they  had  been  grouped  upon  either  the  one  principle  or  the 
other,  we  should  not  have  found  Ruth,  Chronicles,  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  and  Esther  placed  in  a  separate  group 
from  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  nor  the  Books  of  Lamen- 
tations and  Daniel  separated  from  those  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel. 

The  usual  explanations  which  have  been  given,  have 
gone,  as  a  rule,  very  wide  of  the  mark.  They  have  par- 
taken rather  of  the  nature  of  comment,  drawn  from  the 
fact  of  the  triple  division,  than  of  explanation  based  upon 
actual  evidence.   Thus,  the  Jewish  tradition  that  the  three 


THE   ARRANGEMENT   OF   THE   BOOKS.  211 

groups  correspond  to  three  descending  stages  of  inspira-  chap.  xti. 
tion  \  'the  gradus  Mosaicus,'  '  the  spirit  of  prophecy/  and 
*the  Holy  Spirit '  in  its  simplest  form  (or  Ruakh  Haqqo- 
desh),  offered  no  real  explanation  of  the  phenomena  ; 
but  simply  repeated  the  opinion  which  Jewish  teachers 
pronounced  upon  the  relative  religious  value  of  the  three 
groups  (see  Maimonides,  Moreh  Nebockim,  ii.  45)-^ 

Modern  explanations,  which  have  not  been  based  upon  Modem 
a  recognition   of  the  gradual  expansion  of  the  Canon,  Tuced  front, 
are  liable  to  the  same  censure.     Thus,  it  may,  in  a  great  "^^//Jl^^!' 
measure,  be  perfectly  true,  that  the  three  divisions  of  the  ^'^^  ^/^ 

'  r    1  1  tripartite 

Hebrew  Canon  correspond  to  the  course  of  development  division. 
to  be  traced  in  the  history  of  Old  Testament  Theology, 
in  (i)  the  nucleus  of  Mosaic  Revelation,  (2)  the  ob- 
jective expansion  of  it  through  the  Prophets,  (3)  its  sub- 
jective expression  through  the  poetry  and  'Wisdom'  of 
the  Hagiographa  (cf  Oehler,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament^ 
i.  7oEng.Trans).  There  may  be  a  truth  in  the  assertion  that 
the  three  divisions  reflect  in  a  special  manner  the  attitude 
of  religious  thought  in  Israel  towards  the  Almighty,  to- 
wards the  Theocracy, and  towards  Revelation,  respectively 
(cf.  Keil,  Einleit.  p.  501).  Still,  these  and  similar  ex- 
planations are  pious  reflexions,  evoked  by  the  existence 
of  a  tripartite  division,  rather  than  scientific  arguments 
based  on  the  literary  or  historical  criticism  of  the  groups. 
They  are  not  without  use  as  suggestive  generalisations. 

^  See  on  this  subject  John  Smith's  Discourse  of  Prophecy,  chap.  ii.  pp. 
178  seq.  (ed,  Camb.  Univ.  Press,  1859.) 

2  Some  of  the  attempts  .  to  account  for  the  position  of  Daniel 
among  the  Hagiographa,  instead  of  among  the  Prophets,  are  ahnost 
absurd  in  their  variety  and  obvious  inadequacy,  e.  g.  '  Daniel  was  a 
prophet  in  gift,  not  in  office,'  '  he  prophesied  in  a  foreign  land,  not  in 
Palestine,'  *  he  received  manifestations  of  angels '  (Nachmanides),  '  he  was 
a  politician,  and  lived  at  a  royal  court.' 
P  2 


212  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  But,  as  a  rule,  they  are  put  forward  on  the  assumption 
that  the  formation  of  the  whole  Canon  was  undertaken  by 
one  man,  or  by  a  single  generation,  endowed  with  special 
supernatural  gifts  for  the  work  (cf.  Keil,  Einleit.  p.  501)- 
That  assumption  breaks  down  utterly,  when  confronted 
with  the  better  knowledge  of  the  books  obtained  by 
modern  study,  by  a  more  careful  analysis  of  the  language, 
and  by  a  stricter  scrutiny  of  the  contents  of  the  indi. 
vidual  writings.  The  generation  to  which  Ezra  belonged 
may  have  assisted  at  the  first,  they  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  final,  stage  in  the  formation  of  the  Canon.  The 
books  of  Chronicles  and  Ecclesiastes  alone  would  dis- 
prove the  correctness  of  the  traditional  view. 

Even  apart  from  the  results  of  recent  criticism,  the 
generalisations  alluded  to  above  equally  break  down, 
when  tested  by  application  to  specific  cases,  to  the 
peculiar  anomalies  of  the  tripartite  division.  Thus,  the 
explanation  that  Daniel,  being  an  apocalyptic  work,  could 
not  take  rank  among  the  '  Prophets,'  will  hardly  com- 
mend itself  to  the  ordinary  reader  in  the  face  of  our  Lord's 
words  (Matt.  xxiv.  15)  \  Similarly,  the  contention  that 
the  narrative  books  of  the  Hagiographa,  e.  g.  Ruth,  Ezra, 
and  Nehemiah,  relate  the  sacred  history  from  a  different 

^  John  Smith  (page  243,  ut  sup.),  in  whose  days  the  idea  of  a  gradual 
formation  of  the  O.  T.  Canon  was  unknown,  attributes  the  position  of 
Daniel  in  the  Hagiographa  to  the  error  of  the  Jews.  '  And,  therefore, 
whatever  the  latter  Jews  here  urge,  for  thus  ranking  Daniel's  books  with 
the  other  cmnD,  yet,  seeing  they  give  us  no  traditional  reason  which  their 
ancestors  had  for  so  doing,  I  should  rather  think  it  to  have  been,  first  of  all, 
some  fortuitous  thing  which  gave  an  occasion  to  this  after-mistake,  as  I 
think  it  is'  (1650).  So  also  Leusden,  Philolog.  Hebrae.  Dissert,  viii.  p.  91 
(ed.  2,  1672),  '  Continet  ergo  (Daniel)  prophetiam  ;  et  propterea  Judaei 
eum  immerito  e  choro  Prophetarum  extrudunt,  et  ad  Hagiographa  ablegant.' 
This  appears  to  be  a  more  candid  explanation  for  the  position  of  Daniel  in 
the  Hebrew  Canon  than  the  attempts  to  show  that  Daniel  was  not  really  a  . 
Prophet. 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  BOOKS.     213 

standpoint  from  the  Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  Chap.  xii. 

may  or  may  not  be  true  ;  but  it  conveys  no  sufficient 

reason   for  their  non-admission  into  the  group   of  the 

*  Prophets.'  If  the  '  Prophets '  included  Haggai,  Zechariah, 

and  Malachi,  the  parallel  narratives  in  Ezra,  Nehemiah 

and  Esther  had  just  as  much  claim  to  admission  among 

the  narrative  books  of  the  same  group. 

The  truth  is,  that  explanations  of  the  difficulties  of  the 
triple  grouping  are  little  better  than  guess-work,  so  long 
as  the  historical  sequence  in  the  formation  of  the  Canon 
is  not  recognised.  It  is  not,  therefore,  worth  while  here  to 
discuss  their  inadequacy  at  any  length.  For  as  fast  as 
one  explanation  is  disposed  of,  another  can  always  be 
discovered.  On  the  other  hand,  so  soon  as  the  gradual 
growth  of  the  Canon  is  admitted,  the  phenomena  of  the 
triple  grouping  are  seen  not  to  constitute  difficulties,  but 
to  illustrate  the  history  of  the  literary  process  at  suc- 
cessive epochs. 


The  chief  variations  in  the  arrangement  of  the  books 
fall  into  two  main  groups  ;  the  one,  representing  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Alexandrine  version ;  the  other,  the 
changes  that  have,  at  different  times,  occurred  within  the 
second  and  third  divisions  of  the  Hebrew  Canon. 

I.  The  Alexandrine  version  disregarded  the  Hebrew  /.  influence 
tripartite  division,  and  generally  endeavoured  to  group  arrang^^^ 
the   books,  according  to  their  subject-matter,  into  the  ^^^^^^ 
divisions  of  narrative,  poetical,  and  prophetical  books. 
But  no  uniformity  of  order  seems  to  have  been  main- 
tained. 

The  list  of  Melito  (Euseb.  H,  E.  iv.  26),  though  pur-  Meiuo. 
porting  to  give  the  order  and  contents  of  the  Hebrew 


214    THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  Canon  of  Scripture,  probably  enumerates  the  Hebrew 
books  in  the  order  of  the  Greek  Bible.  '  Five  books  of 
Moses,  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  Judges,  Ruth,  four  books 
of  the  Kingdoms,  two  of  Chronicles  (  =  Paralipomena),the 
Psalms  of  David,  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs,  Job,  the  prophets  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the 
Twelve  in  one  Book,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Esdras.'  We  here 
notice  (i)  the  general  arrangement  into  narrative,  poetical, 
and  prophetical  groups,  the  book  Esdras  ( =  Ezra,  Nehe- 
miah)  being  attached,  as  an  appendix,  to  the  prophets  of 
the  Captivity ;  (2)  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  titles,  *  Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun,'  '  Kingdoms '  (for  '  Kings  '),  *  Paralipo- 
mena';  (3)  the  place  of  Ruth  next  after  Judges,  of 
Chronicles  after  Kings,  of  Lamentations,  presumably, 
after  Jeremiah,  of  Daniel  before  Ezekiel ;  (4)  the  sub- 
division of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles. 

origen.  The  Hst  of  Ongcn  is  very  similar: — 'the  five  books 

of  Moses  ;  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun  ;  Judges,  Ruth 
along  with  them,  in  one  book ;  Kingdoms  first,  second, 
third,  fourth  ;  Chronicles,  first,  second  ;  Esdras  first, 
second  ;  Book  of  Psalms ;  Proverbs  of  Solomon  ;  Eccle- 
siastes ;  Song  of  Songs ;  Isaiah ;  book  with  Lamen- 
tations and  the  Epistle  in  one  book ;  Daniel ;  Eze- 
kiel ;  Job  ;  Esther  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  25)  ^.  Here,  again, 
w^e  notice  (i)  the  same  general  arrangement  into  nar- 
rative, poetry,  and  prophecy  ;  (2)  the  titles  of  '  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Nun,' '  Kingdoms,' '  Paralipomena,' '  Proverbs  of 
Solomon ' ;  (3)  the  place  of  Ruth,  Chronicles,  Lamentations, 
Daniel ;  (4)  the  sub-division  of  Samuel, Kings,  Chronicles, 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ;  (5)  the  insertion  of  '  The  Epistle ' 
(  =  Baruch  or  Baruch  vi,  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Jeremy). 

^  The  Twelve  Minor   Prophets  have  fallen  out  by  accident  (p.  207)  ; 
probably  they  came  after  Jeremiah. 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF   THE   BOOKS.  2l5 

Origen  gives  the  Hebrew  names  of  the  books  as  well  chap.  xii. 
as  the  Greek,  and  expressly  mentions  that  Samuel, 
Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  are  each  but  one 
book  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  His  object  is  to  give 
the  names  and  the  number  of  the  Hebrew  books  ;  and 
he  enumerates  them,  following  the  Alexandrine  order, 
omitting  all  books  not  contained  in  the  Palestinian 
Canon  ;  '  the  Epistle,'  which  was  united  with  Jeremiah, 
being  the  only  exception. 

In  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  the  books  are  arranged  upon  cod.  Vat. 
the  same  principle,  the  chief  differences  being  (i)  the  in-  ^^^ 
troduction  of  'Apocrypha,'  (2)the  place  of  'Job'  after  the 
canonical  writings  of  Solomon,  due  perhaps  to  the  un- 
certainty about  authorship ;  and  (3)  the  place  of  the 
Twelve  Minor  Prophets  before  Isaiah,  due  probably  to 
an  attempt  at  chronological  arrangement.  The  order  in 
which  the  books  follow  one  another  is,  '  Genesis — Chron- 
icles, I  Esdras,  2  Esdras  (  =  Ezra,  Nehemiah),  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Job,  Wisdom  of 
Solomon^  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sii^ach,  Esther,  Judith^ 
Tobit,  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Baruch, 
Lamentations,  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel. 

The  Codex  Alexandrinus  contains  the  books  of  the  Cod.  aux. 
Old  Testament  in  three  volumes,  in  the  following  order  :  ^^ 
— vol.  i.  Genesis  to  Chronicles  ;  vol.  ii.  Twelve  Minor 
Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  Bartich,  Lamentations, 
and  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel  (Theodotion's 
version),  Esther  with  Additions^  Tobit,  Judith,  i  Esdras^ 
2  Esdras  (  =  Ezra,  Nehemiah),  i,  2,  3,  4  Maccabees  ;  vol. 
iii.  Psalms  with  Canticles,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  the  Son 
of  Sirach. 

In  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 


2l6  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  mcnt  pTobaUy  followed  one  another  in  a  somewhat  similar 
Cod.  Stnait.  order.  Genesis  to  Chronicles,  i  Esdras,  2  Esdras(  =  Ezra, 
4fh  Cent.     Nehemiah),  Esther,  Tobit,  Judith,  i  Maccabees,  4  Mac- 
cabees,   Isaiah,   Jeremiah  with    Bartich,    Lamentations, 
and   Epistle^  [Ezek.    Dan.],    Minor    Prophets,    Psalms, 
Proverbs,    Ecclesiastes,    Song    of    Songs,     Wisdom    of 
Solomon,    Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  Job.     But  the 
fragmentary  condition  in  which  the  Old  Testament  in 
this  MS.  has  survived,  precludes  any  absolute  certainty 
as  to  the  place  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel. 
Cyril,  Bp. of     Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (t386)  who  gives  the  contents  of 

Jerusalem.     xTir--  -i-  y        r^  i         •       /  \i 

Holy  Scripture  in  his  4th  Catechesis  [sec.  '^^t)  shows 
acquaintance  with  Hebrew  usage,  and  expressly  mentions 
that  the  i stand  2nd  Books  of '  Kingdoms  '  were  regarded 
as  one  book  by  the  Jews,  as  also  the  3rd  and  4th  Books 
of  '  Kingdoms,'  the  ist  and  2nd  of  Chronicles,  and  the 
1st  and  2nd  of  Esdras.  He  mentions  the  books  in  the 
following  order  : — the  historical  books,  Genesis  to  Deu- 
teronomy, Joshua,  Judges  with  Ruth,  1-4  Kingdoms 
(Samuel  and  Kings),  i,  2  Chronicles,  i,  2  Esdras,  Esther ; 
the  poetical  books,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs  ;  the  prophetical  books,  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  Baruch,  Lamenta- 
tions, and  Epistle,  Ezekiel,  Daniel. 
Aihauasms.  jj^  |.|^g  jjg^  ^f  Athauasius  [;>fi^^  the  books  are  given  in 
the  following  order  : — Genesis  to  Deuteronomy,  Joshua, 
Judges,  Ruth,  i,  2,  3,  4  'Kingdoms,'  i,  2  Chronicles,  1,2 
Esdras,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs, 
Job,  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with 
Bartich,  Lamentations,  and  Epistle,  Y.z€^\^,  and  Daniel. 
{Ep.  Best,  xxxix.) 
Gregory  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (t39o)  gives  an  arrangement 

sTct.x.^L!^'  in  three  groups,  of  twelve,  five,  and  five  books  respec- 


THE   ARRANGEMENT   OF   THE   BOOKS.  21 7 

tively;  historical,Genesis  toDeuteronomy,  Joshua,  Judges,  Chap.  xii. 
Ruth  'the  eighth  book,'  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra  (Esther  is 
omitted);  poetical.  Job,  David  (=  Psalms),  and  three  of 
Solomon  (Eccles.,  Song,  Prov.)  ;  prophetical,  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets  (in  the  LXX  order),  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  Daniel  (Lamentations  probably  reckoned  with 
Jeremiah). 

The  Spurious  Canon  (lix)  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea  CotmcHof 

I     ^    \  lilt  Laodicea  363 

(303)  composed  probably  about  400  A.D.,  thus  enumerates  spurious 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament :  (i)  Genesis  of  the  world,  f^u^"^^^^' 
(2)  Exodus  from  Egypt,  (3)  Leviticus,  (4)  Numbers,  (5) 
Deuteronomy,  (6)  Joshua,  son  of  Nun,  (7)  Judges,  Ruth, 
(8)  Esther,  (9)  1,  2  *  Kingdoms,'  (10)  3,  4  'Kingdoms,' 
(11)  I,  2  Paralipomena,  (12)  i,  2  Esdras,  (13)  Book  of 
Psalms,  (14)  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  (15)  Ecclesiastes, 
(16)  Song  of  Songs,  (17)  Job,  (18)  Twelve  Prophets, 
(19)  Isaiah,  (20)  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  Lamentations 
and  Epistles,  (21)  Ezekiel,  (22)  Daniel. 

In  one  list  of  Epiphanius  (t403)  the  contents  of  the  Epiphanius. 
Hebrew  Scriptures  are  given  in  the  following  order  : — 
Genesis  to  Deuteronomy,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Job, 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  1-4 
'  Kingdoms,'  i,  2  Chronicles,  Twelve  Minor  Prophets, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  Lamentations,  Epistle,  and  Baruch, 
Ezekiel,  Daniel,  1  Esdras,  2  Esdras,  Esther  (Haeresis 
viii.  6).  ■  In  another  list,  the  order  given  is  slightly 
different,  the  books  are  arranged  in  five  '  pentateuchs ' 
with  two  over  : — (i)  The  legal,  Genesis  to  Deuteronomy  ; 
(ii)  The  poetical,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs ;  (iii)  Records,  or  Hagiographa  [sic)^ 
Joshua,  Judges  with  Ruth,  Chronicles  i  and  2,  '  King- 
doms'  I  and  2,  'Kingdoms'  3  and  4;  (iv)  The  pro- 
phetical, Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Eze- 


21 8  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT, 

Chap. XII.  kiel,  Daniel;  and  two  others,  i,  2  Esdras  and  Esther 
{De  Mens.etPond.  4).  In  another  list  the  Hebrew  books  are 
given  in  the  following  order  : — Genesis  to  Deuteronomy, 
Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  Job,  Judges,  Ruth,  Psalms,  i,  % 
Chronicles,  1,2'  Kingdoms/  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of 
Songs,  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  i,  2  Esdras,  Esther  [De  Mens,  et  Pond.  22,  23). 

Ruffinus.  Ruffinus  (t4io)  gives  the  following  order  : — Genesis  to 
Deuteronomy,  Joshua,  Judges  with  Ruth,  four  Books  of 
Kingdoms,  Chronicles,  i,  2  Esdras,  Esther,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,  Twelve  Minor  Prophets, 
Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs 
[Comm.  in  Symb.  Apost.  §  '^6). 

From  an  examination  of  these  lists  it  appears  that 
even  where  it  was  intended  to  give  the  contents  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  as  distinguished  from  the  longer  Canon 
of  the  Greek  Bible,  the  Christian  Fathers  followed  the 
order  of  the  books  in  the  Greek  Bible.  Where  no 
acquaintance  is  shown  with  the  Hebrew  tripartite 
division,  there  we  may  be  sure  the  list  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  is  taken  from  a  Greek  source.  Its  limitation,  not 
its  arrangement,  is  reproduced  :  its  contents,  not  their 
order,  have  been  preserved.  Proof  of  this  is  to  be 
found  in  (1)  the  Greek  titles,  e.  g.  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun, 
'  Kingdoms,'  *  Paralipomena ' ;  (2)  the  insertion  of  Greek 
books,  e.  g.  Baruch,  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  and  i  Esdras  ; 
(3)  the  sub-division  of  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra- 
Nehemiah  ;  (4)  the  prevailing  arrangement  by  subject- 
matter,  e.  g.  of  Chronicles,  Daniel,  Esther,  and  the  effort 
to  group  chronologically,  as  in  the  position  of  the  Minor 
Prophets  before  Isaiah  ;  (5)  the  complete  absence  of  any 
uniformity  in  the  arrangement.  The  tripartite  division 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon  was  recognised  universally  by  the 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  BOOKS.     21 9 

Jews  when  the  Mishnah  was  committed  to  writing  (circ.  chap.  xii. 
200  A.D.).  It  was  well  known  to  Jerome  [vid.  infr.)  in 
the  fourth  century.  The  fact  that  it  is  not  adopted  in 
the  Christian  lists,  cited  above,  which  claimed  to  give  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  must  be  attributed  either  to  general 
ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  tradition,  or  to  disregard  of 
what  seemed  to  be  a  trifling  divergence  from  the  Bible 
in  use  among  Christians. 

H.  We  turn  now  to  the  variations  in  the  arrangement  11.  Hebrew 
of  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  jCanon,  where  the  tripartite  variltions 
division  was  known  and  recognised.     The  variations  are  "'  °^'^^^- 
confined  to  the  second  and  third  divisions.     They  may  be 
discussed  under  the  heads  oi{a)  the  position  of  Ruth  and 
Lamentations  ;  (b)  the  order  of  '  the  Prophets '  ;    [c)  the 
order  of '  the  Hagiographa.' 

[a)  We  have  already  noticed  that,  in  the  earliest  {d)Ruthand 
arrangement  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  Ruth  and  Lamenta- 
tions were  included  among  the  Hagiographa.  Some  of 
the  grounds  for  this  belief  have  been  mentioned  in  a 
former  chapter.  The  lists  in  which  they  appear  among 
the  '  Prophets '  are  all,  I  believe,  those  which  have  been 
influenced  by  the  usage  of  the  Greek  Bible.  Even  the 
list  of  Jerome,  in  his  Prologics  Galeatus^,  which  claims  to 
give  the  Hebrew  books  in  the  Hebrew  order,  offers  no 
exception  to  this  rule. 

The  enumeration  of  twenty-two  books  in  the  Evidence  of 
Hebrew  Scriptures  requires  the  conjunction  of  Ruth  pt^/.^^aT 
with  Judges,  and  of  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah. 
Jerome  gives  one  enumeration  of  twenty-two  books, 
another  of  twenty-seven  ;  the  former,  he  points  out, 
corresponds  to  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet, 
1  See  Excursus  D. 


220  THE   CANON    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  the  latter  to  the  Hebrew  alphabet  with  the  letters, 
Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Tsade  (which  have  a  different 
shape  at  the  close  of  a  word)  reckoned  over  a  second 
time.  The  additional  five  letters  correspond,  according 
to  Jerome,  to  the  double  books  i,  2  Samuel,  i,  2  Kings, 
I,  2  Chronicles,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Jeremiah-Lamentations. 
This  assertion,  however,  illustrates  how  little  we  can  rely 
upon  Jerome's  testimony  for  an  accurate  statement  of 
Hebrew  tradition.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than 
that,  in  the  Jewish  Church,  the  Hebrew  books,  Samuel, 
Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra-Neherniah  were  not  subdivided 
Inaccurate  till  many  ccntuHes  later  ^  Jerome's  reference,  therefore, 
"tradition^^  to  the  ' double  books  '  is  proof  that  he  is  influenced  by, 
and  is  alluding  to,  the  usage  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Bibles,  and  is  not  accurately  reproducing  the  state  of  the 
.case  as  to  the  Hebrew  Canon.  Once  more,  the  imper- 
fection of  even  his  own  artificial  enumeration  of  twenty- 
seven  books  is  exemplified  by  his  omission  of  Judges- 
Ruth,  which  he  regarded  as  two  books  in  one,  from  the 
category  of  '  double  books.'  Had  he  included  Judges- 
Ruth,  his  list  of  'double  books'  would  have  exceeded 
the  number  of  '  final '  Hebrew  letters,  and  would  have 
spoiled  the  symmetry  of  his  calculations  ^. 

The  testimony,  therefore,  of  Jerome  to  the  view  that 
Ruth  and  Lamentations  belonged,  in  Hebrew  copies,  to 
'  the  Prophets,'  fails  altogether  to  command  our  confi- 
dence. It  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  number 
of  the  books  in  the  Canon  was  twenty-two.     This  was  a 

^  Not  till  the  beginniDg  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

^  John  of  Damascus  (t7So)  avoids  this  difficulty  by  not  including  Jere- 
miah and  Lamentations  among  the  double  books,  typified  by  the  five  '  final  ' 
Hebrew  letters.  He  boldly  makes  the  assertion  :  ^vvaifmai  7^/)  'Poi»5 
roh  Kpirais  Kal  dpiO/xiiTai  trap  'E^paiois  fiia  ^i^Kos.  {De  fid.  Orthod.  iv.  17). 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  CANON.     221 

number  which  tallied  with  the  Septuagintal  arrangementj  chap.  xii. 
and  also  possessed,  in  Jerome's  mind,  especial   virtue 
and  significance,  because  it  corresponded  to  the  number 
of  the  Hebrew  letters.    The  number 'twenty-two'  is  first  Patristic 
given  to  the  contents  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  by  Josephus  \rew7etters 
(Contr,  Ap.  i.  8),  who,  as  we  have  seen,  used  the  Septua-  ^^^kT/ai^. 
gint  version.     Origen  was  the  first  who  pointed  out  that  ^ioiis 
this    number    was    also    that    of    the    letters    in    the 
Hebrew  alphabet  (Euseb.  H,  E,  vi.  25),  and  the  coinci- 
dence  is  emphatically   repeated    by    Athanasius,   Gre- 
gory  of  Nazianzus,    Hilary    of   Poitiers,   and    Epipha- 
nius,  as  well  as  by  Jerome  ^.     The  coincidence,  it  was 
thought,    could    hardly    be   accidental.     The    *  twenty- 
two'  books  of  the  Greek  Bible  must,  it  was  supposed,  re- 
present 'twenty-two'  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  ;  hence, 
it  was  concluded,  the  number  of  the  books  in  the  He- 
brew Canon  was  providentially  ordained  to  agree  with 
the  number  of  the  Hebrew  letters.     On  such  a  wholly 
shadowy  hypothesis,  the  number  '  twenty-two '  received 
support  from  the  Christian  Fathers ;  and,  in  consequence,  it 

■'  Orig.  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  25. — ovk  dyvorjreov  5'  eivai  ras  (vSiaOrjKovs 
^iP\ovs,  els  'EPpaToi  Ttapdbiboaaiv,  bvo  Koi  eiKoai,  oaos  6  dpidfxos  ruv  nap' 
avToTs  aroLX^ictiv  kariv. 

Athan.  £j>.  Fest.  xxxix. — tan  rolvvv  rrjs  fxev  iraXaids  SiaO-fjKrjs  Pi^kia  t£ 
dpi$fxSj  rd  irdvra  dKoffiSvo'  roaavra  yap  us  rjKovaa  Kol  rd   aroix^ia  rd  nap' 
'E^paiois  ehai  irapaSedoTai  (observe  the  significance  of  '^Kovffa). 
Greg.  Naz.  Carm.  Sect,  i,  1 2 — 

"" hpxaias  pXv  e6i]Ka  Svcu  Kal  ukocti  Pi^\ovs 
TOis  Tuv  'EPpaiojv  ypapLfiaaiv  dvTidirovs. 

Hil.  Frol.  Comm.  in  Fs. — Et  ea  causa  est,  ut  in  triginti  duos  libros  lex 
Testamenti  Veteris  deputetur,  ut  cum  literarum  numero  convenirent. 

Epiphan.  Haer.  viii.  6. — at  uKoai  k-nrd  ^i^Xoi  al  l/c  dcov  SoOeTaai  tois 
lovbaiois,  €iKoai  5vo  di  dciv  ojs  rd  nap'  avrots  aroix^to.  tuiv  'E^pal'Kwv 
ypa/jLfjuxTOJV  dpiO/xovfxivaif  did  to  SinKovadai  deKa  jSt/SAous  ds  nivre  XiyopLivas. 


211  THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  was  not  doubted  that  the  books,  Ruth  and  Lamentations, 
had,  from  the  first,  been  united  with  Judges  and  Jeremiah. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  the  supposed  agreement  in  the 
number  of  the  Hebrew  letters  with  the  number  of  the 
Hebrew  sacred  books  seems  to  be  of  Greek  origin,  and 
does  not  appear  in  Hebrew  tradition.  This  would 
hardly  have  been  the  case,  if '  twenty-two  '  had  been  the 
original  number  of  the  books  in  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

Twenty-  On  the  othcr  hand,  the  number  '  twenty-four '  is  uni- 

books.  formly  given  by  genuinely  Hebrew  tradition  as  the  number 

of  the  Hebrew  books  of  Scripture.  As  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  this  number  most  probably  receives  sup- 
port from  a  testimony  dating  from  the  close  of  the 
first  century  A.D.  (4  Esdras).  It  is  the  number  found 
assigned  to  the  contents  of  the  Canon  both  in  the 
Talmud  and  in  Rabbinic  literature  generally.  This 
number,  'twenty- four/  requires  the  enumeration  of  Ruth 
and  Lamentations  as  separate  works. 

Talmud,  In  the  earliest  Rabbinic  list  of  Scripture,  Ruth  and 

Lamentations  are  placed  among  the  Hagiographa  [Baba 
Bathra  14  /^,  see  below) ;  and  in  the  Targums  ^  of  *  the 
Prophets,'  even  in  the  most  ancient,  that  of  Jonathan, 
Ruth  and  Lamentations  do  not  appear.  According  to 
the   legend,   Jonathan-ben-Uziel   was   forbidden,    by   a 


^  Targum  is  the  name  given  to  the  oral  interpretation,  or  paraphrase,  of 
the  Scripture  read  in  the  Synagogue.  Only  the  learned  knew  Hebrew  in 
our  Lord's  time.  An  officer,  called  the  Meturgeman  (  =  Dragoman),  gave 
the  sense  of  the  Lesson  in  the  Aramaic  tongue,  which  the  people  used. 
Gradually  the  oral  interpretation  assumed  a  fixed  form,  and  was 
committed  to  writing.  Hence  the  Torah  Targum  of  Onkelos,  i.e. 
the  rendering  according  to  the  school  of  Aquila,  and  the  Nebiim 
Targum  of  Jonathan,  which  some  identify  with  the  school  of  Theodotion. 
The  Targums  of  the  Kethubim  were  clearly  not  intended  for  use  in  the 
Synagogue. 


THE   ARRANGEMENT   OF   THE   BOOKS.  223 

Divine  Message,  to  undertake  the  translation  of  the  Chap.  xii. 
Kethubim  [Megilla  3  a) ;  and  there  can  be  no  sort  of  xargum. 
doubt  that  the  Targums  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations 
are  of  very  much  later  date  than  those  of  'the  Prophets.' 
The  Targum  of  Jonathan  is  probably  a  homogeneous 
work,  dating  possibly  from  the  second  century  A.D. ;  and 
it  never  embraced  either  Ruth  or  Lamentations. 

One  single  passage,  taken  from  Jerome's  own  writings,  Jerome,  Pre- 
is  sufficient  to  demonstrate,  that  his  inclusion  of  Ruth 
and  Lamentations  among  the  '  Prophets,'  and  his  support 
of  the  number  '  twenty-two '  for  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  have  no  critical  value,  and  contradict  the 
genuine  Hebrew  tradition.  He  himself,  when  he 
is  not  distracted  from  the  simple  narration  of  facts  by 
imaginary  symbolism,  is  able  to  reproduce  the  Hebrew 
Canon  in  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  tradition  as  to 
the  number  of  the  books.  In  his  *  Preface  to  Daniel/ 
he  states  the  Hebrew  usage,  assigning  five  books  to  the 
Law,  eight  to  the  Prophets,  eleven  to  the  Hagiographa : 

*  I  call  attention  to  this,  that,  among  the  Hebrews, 
Daniel  is  not  reckoned  with  the  Prophets,  but  with 
those  who  wrote  the  '' kyi6ypa<\>a.  For  all  Scripture  is 
by  them  divided  into  three  portions,  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  'Ayioypac^a,  that  is  into  five,  and  eight, 
and  eleven  books.' 

{b)  The  order  of  the  books  of  ^  the  Prophets  '  and  the  Writing  on 
Hagiographa  varies  very  much  in  the  extant  lists  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  and  in- the  Hebrew  MSS.^     For  this, 

^  The  reader  will  bearinmind,that  no  known(i89i)HebrewMS.ofthe  Bible 
is  earlier  than  the  tenth  century.  The  date,  856,  claimed  for  the  Cambridge 
MS.  No.  12,  is  undoubtedly  very  considerably  too  early,  cf.  Schiller 
Szinnessy's  Catalogue  Hebrew  MSS.  in  Cambridge  University  Library,  and 
Neubauer's  Essay  in  vol.  iii.  of  Studia  Biblica. 


224  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

at  first  sight,  startling  phenomenon,  a  simple  explana- 
tion is  forthcoming.  For  a  long  time  each  book  was 
written  on  a  separate  roll ;  and  the  question  of  the  order 
of  the  books  was  not  mooted.  In  early  times,  to  possess 
more  than  one  book  in  a  single  roll  was  an  exception, 
and  called  for  remark.  This  may  be  illustrated  from 
the  Talmud,  '  Our  Rabbis  taught :  it  is  not  forbidden  to 
write  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa  in 
a  single  volume.  The  words  of  Rabbi  Meir  ^  were,  that 
Rabbi  Jehudah  ^  used  to  say  "  The  Law  should  be 
written  separately,  and  the  Prophets  separately,  and  the 
Hagiographa  separately."  The  Wise  Men  also  used  to 
say,  each  book  should  be  written  separately.  And 
Rabbi  Jehudah  said,  that  Boethus,  the  son  of  Zonin,  had 
eight  prophets  united  in  one  (book),  with  the  approval 
of  Eleazar  ben- Azariah  ^.  But  some  say,  they  were  not 
united,  but  each  one  written  separately.  Rabbi  *  said  in 
reply,  they  brought  before  us  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Hagiographa  united  together  and  we  approved 
them.'     {Baba  Bathra,  fol.  13  <^^.) 

Similarly,  questions  are  recorded  as  having  been  asked 
by  the  Rabbins,  whether  it  was  lawful  to  combine  the 
Prophets  with  the  Law  in  one  volume,  whether  the  Pro- 
phets and  the  Hagiographa  might  be  included  in  the 
same  volume  with  the  Law ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no 
doubt  that,  in  those  questions,  the  Prophets  and  Hagio- 

^  A  pupil  of  Rabbi  Akiba  ;  eminent  Jewish  teacher  in  second  century  A.D. 

^  Rabbi  Jehuda,  ben-Ilai,  lived  in  first  century  A.D. 

^  Eleazar,  successor  of  Gamaliel,  end  of  first  century  A.D. 

*  i.e.  Rabbi  Jehuda,  the  Holy,  compiler  of  the  Mishnah,  circ.  200  A.D. 

®  '  Sopherim,  iii.  6,  allows  all  the  books  to  be  united  in  inferior  copies 
written  on  the  material  called  diphthfera,  but  not  in  synagogue  rolls ; 
compromise  pointing  to  the  gradual  introduction  in  post-Talmudic  times  of 
the  plan  of  treating  the  Bible  as  one  volVme.'  Robertson  Smith,  O.  T.  J.  C. 
p.  410. 


THE   ARRANGEMENT   OF   THE   BOOKS.  225 

grapha  denote,  not  the  whole  groups,  but  only  individual  Chap.  xii. 
books  belonging  to  those  groups  ^. 

The  unwieldly  size  and  shape  of  the  rolls  made  it 
almost  impossible  to  combine  many  books  in  a  single 
volume.  The  Rabbins  also  clearly  viewed  with  sus- 
picion the  attempt  to  include  more  than  one  book  in  a 
single  roll.  Perhaps  they  foresaw  difficulties  from  the 
combination  of  various  books,  if  it  should  happen  that 
one  was  to  be  removed  from  public  reading.  Perhaps,  too, 
they  disliked  the  necessary  variety  in  size  both  of  the 
rolls  and  of  the  characters  in  which  they  were  written,  as 
likely  to  multiply  errors  in  transcription. 

The  three  groups  were  rigorously  kept  apart.  But, 
within  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa,  the  order 
of  sequence  of  the  books  was  either  not  authoritatively 
laid  down,  or  was  not  generally  known.  The  rolls  were 
preserved  in  their  case  (^5pTl),  and  treasured  in  the  Ark 
of  the  Synagogue.  They  were  brought  out  as  they 
were  needed  from  time  to  time.  The  manner  of  their 
preservation  did  not  help  to  determine  their  relative 
priority.  This  question  only  arose  when  the  Codex 
began  to  supplant  the  Roll  for  the  purpose  of  private 
study,  and  when  more  books  than  one  were  written  in 
a  single  roll. 

The  Prophets.     As  might  be  expected,  no  variation  is  Nebum 
found   in  the  order   of  the  four  narrative  books,  '  the  ^^^  °^^^' 
former  prophets.'     They  follow  the  order  of  chronolo- 
gical sequence — Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings. 

In  the  case  of  *  the  latter  prophets,'  an  interesting  akharonim. 
variation  is  found,  which  raises  the  question,  whether  the 

^  Cf.  Meg.  27  a,  and  Jer.  Meg.  iii.  74a  quoted  by  Marx  {Tradit.  Jud. 
Vet.  pp.  28-30). 

Q 


226  THE   CANON   OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  order  of  '  the  great  prophets ' — Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel 
— really  agrees  with  the  earliest  arrangement  of  the  books 
in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  It  is  the  obvious  chronological 
order  ;  and  it  is  found  in  the  lists  of  Origen  and  Jerome, 
who,  however,  are  probably  influenced  by  the  LXX. 
Taimudic  The  Hcbrcw  tradition  preserved  in  Baba  bathra  14  b, 
^Es^.^i's  '  a  passage  which  has  already  been  referred  to,  mentions 
them  in  the  order  of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  ;  and 
they  are  found  in  that  order  in  a  large  number  of  MSS., 
especially  those  of  German  and  French  origin. 

Now  Isaiah,  we  instinctively  feel,  is  very  naturally 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  prophetical  writings,  as  the 
greatest  and  most  majestic  of  all  the  prophets,  and  as 
the  earliest  in  date  of  'the  great  prophets.'  If  its  place 
was  originally  at  their  head,  it  is  certainly  difficult  to 
account  for  its  position  in  this  fragment  from  Rabbinic 
tradition.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  its  place  was  originally 
between  Ezekiel  and  the  Minor  Prophets,  we  can  well 
imagine,  how,  out  of  regard  both  for  its  chronological 
position,  for  its  commanding  prestige,  for  its  beauty,  and 
for  its  spiritual  influence,  it  was  transferred,  at  a  later  time, 
to  the  post  which  it  now  holds  in  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
at  the  head  of  the  prophetical  writings.  All  we  can  say 
is,  that  its  Taimudic  position,  after  Ezekiel  and  in  front 
of  the  Minor  Prophets,  is  opposed  to  the  idea  of  arrange- 
ment either  in  order  of  chronology  or  in  order  of  dignity; 
and  that  if  this  represents  the  earliest  position  assigned 
to  the  prophet,  it  must  have  been  owing  to  some  very 
definite  purpose.  What  this  purpose  was,  we  are  left  to 
conjecture  alone.  And  conjecture  has  not  been  idle. 
Expiana-  (i)  The  Rabbius  supplied  a  highly  characteristic  ex- 
(X)  Rabbinic:  planatiou.  The  order  of  the  books  was  intended  to 
^mai^er.        Tcproducc  the  Continuity  of  the  subject-matter.      The 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF   THE   BOOKS.  227 

Books  of  Kings  closed  with  a  picture  of  desolation,  and  chap.  xii. 
were  therefore  followed  by  Jeremiah,  whose  book  was  all 
desolation.  Jeremiah  was  followed  by  Ezekiel,  who 
opens  with  words  of  desolation  and  closes  with  words  of 
comfort ;  Ezekiel  is  therefore  followed  by  Isaiah,  whose 
book  was  all  comfort  (Baba  bathra^  14).  See  Excurs.  B. 

(2)  It  was  a  simple,  but  ingenious,  suggestion  of  Gei-  (2)  Geiger: 
ger^  that  the  books  are  arranged  in  order  of  size.     If  we 

take  a  Hebrew  Bible  of  Van  der  Hooght's  edition,  we  find 
that  Jeremiah  occupies  84  pages,  Ezekiel  "]%  Isaiah  64, 
the  Minor  Prophets  58.  But  such  an  explanation  seems 
scarcely  worthy  of  the  subject.  The  coincidence  of  the 
size  with  the  relative  positions  of  the  books  is  note- 
worthy. But  that  it  is  anything  more  than  a  coincidence, 
I  cannot  believe  to  be  at  all  probable.  It  is  not  sup- 
ported by  the  analogy  of  the  arrangement  in  the  case 
of  other  books.  For  the  group  of  Solomonic  books, 
Prov.,  Eccles.,  Song  of  Songs,  being  attributed  to  the 
same  author,  obviously  offers  no  real  parallel. 

(3)  Another    most    improbable    conjecture,    that    oi^'^^^f^*' 
Krochmal,  repeated  by  Julius  Flirst  in  his  book  on  the  xi-ixvi. 
Canon ^,  deserves  a  passing  notice  in  spite  of  its  wildness. 

He  pointed  out  that  the  position  of  Isaiah  after  Ezekiel 
agreed  with  the  date  of  the  latter  portion  of  Isaiah  II 
(xl-lxvi),  and  further  that  the  consolatory  tone  of  the 
book,  referred  to  by  the  Rabbins,  is  only  characteristic 
of  Isaiah  II.      He  therefore  suggested  that  originally 

^  Abr.  Geiger  (quoted  by  Strack,  art.  *  Kanon'')  Wissensch.  Ztschr.f.  Jiia. 
Theol.  ii.  (1836),  pp.  489-496.  The  same  view  is  put  forward  by  Herzfeld 
Gesch.  Volks  Jiid.  ii.  p.  103  (1863),  independently,  or,  at  least,  without  re- 
ference to  Geiger 's  having  suggested  it. 

2  Kan.  d.  Alt.  Test.  pp.  15-28.  Strack  (Art.  ' Kanon' ^:E?-)  attributes 
the  place  of  Isaiah  in  the  Talmudic  list  to  a  recollection  of  the  Exilic 
origin  of  the  latter  part  of  the  book. 

Q2 


228  THE   CANON   OF   THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  Isaiah  I  stood  first,  and  Isaiah  II  fourth,  but  that  after 
the  writings  of  Isaiah  I  had  been  united  with  those  of 
Isaiah  II,  the  position  of  the  exihc  portion  was  re- 
tained, and  for  a  long  time  determined  the  place  of  the 
book  in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  But  to  suppose  that  the 
Rabbins  from  whom  we  receive  the  Mishnah  and  Gemara 
would  have  assigned  any  portion  of  Isaiah  to  the  period 
of  the  exile,  is  a  quite  inadmissible  assumption  (cf.  John 
xii.  38-41.)  And  the  son  of  Sirach  clearly  shows  that  the 
latter  part  of  Isaiah  was  by  the  Jews  of  his  time  unques- 
tionably assigned  to  the  great  prophet  of  Hezekiah's 
reign  (cf.  Ecclus.  xlviii.  24,  25). 

U^  Marx :      (4)  The  explanation  put  forward  by  M2iV^  (Traditio 

Jer.  and  Es.  .  .  111 

follow  hidaeortini  Vetcrrima^  p.  36)  appears  more  probable. 
j^igs.  ^\^^  Book  of  Jeremiah  followed  naturally  upon  the  Books 
of  Kings ;  it  was  similar  in  style  ;  it  dealt  with  the 
closing  scenes  of  the  Jewish  Monarchy.  Jeremiah  could 
hardly  be  separated,  in  point  of  time,  from  Ezekiel. 
Isaiah  remained,  and  was  naturally  placed  in  front  of 
the  Minor  Prophets.  In  point  of  date  Isaiah  would  pair 
with  Hosea  as  fittingly  as  Jeremiah  with  Ezekiel.  At 
first  the  books  of  the  Great  Prophets  would  have  been 
kept  in  separate  rolls.  The  question  of  priority  in  order 
hardly  arose,  until  it  began  to  be  the  custom  to  write 
them  in  the  same  book.  Thus,  the  Talmudic  position  of 
Isaiah  is  a  memorial  of  the  time  when  no  very  sharp 
distinction  had  yet  been  drawn  between  the  narrative 
and  the  prophetical  books  in  the  Second  Group. 

In  mediaeval  times  the  distinction  between  the  his- 
torical and  the  prophetical  books  of  '  the  Prophets ' 
became  more  marked.  They  were  divided  into  the 
'  former '  and  the  '  latter '  prophets.  The  Massoretes, 
perhaps,  first  put  Isaiah  at  the  head  of  the  '  latter '  pro- 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  BOOKS.     229 

phets,  in  which  place  it  stands  in  the  earliest  Hebrew  chap.  xii. 
MS.,  that  of  the  Prophetae  Posteriores,  the  Codex  Baby- 
lonicus  Petropolitanus,  916  A.  D.,  edited  by  S track  (St. 
Petersburg,  1876),  and  in  the  many  MSS.  of  Spanish 
origin.  But  there  are  traces  of  an  intermediate  stage. 
Some  Jewish  scribes,  who  united  Jeremiah  closely  with 
the  Books  of  Kings,  placed  Isaiah  between  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  so  that  Jeremiah  might,  as  it  were,  close  the  his- 
torical, and  Isaiah  commence  the  prophetical  books  :  this 
order  is  found  in  several  MSS.(seeKennicott).  A  few  MSS. 
(e.  g.  Kennicott,Cod.330^,  47 1, 587)  give  the  strange  order 
— Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  {'Ezech.  praecedit  Isaiain). 

The  order  of  the  Minor  Prophets  is  doubtless  intended  Min.  Proph. 
as  approximately  chronological.  The  position  of  the 
Book  of  Jonah  is  probably  due  to  the  mention  made  of 
the  prophet  in  2  Kings  xiv.  25,  which  helped  to  deter- 
mine its  reputed  date.  In  the  Septuagint  Version  an 
attempt,  presumably  made  to  secure  greater  accuracy 
in  the  chronological  arrangement,  led  to  the  slightly 
different  order — Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  Joel,  Obadiah, 
Jonah,  for  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Micah. 

{c)  The  Hagiographa.  It  is  in  the  Hagiographa  that  we  (c)  Kethub- 
find  the  greatest  amount  of  variation  in  the  arrangement  ^'"" 
of  the  books.  This  is  partly  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
great  variety  of  their  subject-matter  and  style,  partly 
also  by  the  fact  that  the  '  Kethubim '  were  not,  at  least 
after  the  completion  of  the  Lectionary,  read  in  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Synagogue.  The  earliest  arrangement  of 
the  books  of  the  Hagiographa  that  has  come  down  to  us 
is  given  in   the   Baba  bathra   passage,    quoted   above, 

^  On  the  strange  Paris  Codex  (330  Kennicott),  see  Manuscrits  Orientanx 
(Tascheriau),  No.  17,  p.  2  (Paris,  1866). 


230 


THE  CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Talmudic 
order. 


Order  in 
Jerome's 
Prol.  Gal. 


which  records  that  '  the  order  of  the  "  Kethubim  "  is 
this :  Ruth,  the  Book  of  Psalms,  Job  and  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs  and  Lamentations,  Daniel 
and  the  Roll  of  Esther,  Ezra  and  Chronicles.' 

In  this  Talmudic  order  of  the  books  we  should  ob- 
serve (i)  that  Ruth  and  Lamentations  are  reckoned 
among  the  Kethubim  ;  (2)  that  Ruth  is  placed  before 
Psalms,  presumably  on  the  ground  that  the  record  of 
David's  ancestry  should  precede  his  writings  ;  (3)  that 
Job,  a  book  which  is  considered  in  the  Baba  bathra 
to  have  been  written  by  Moses,  stands  between  Psalms 
and  Proverbs,  probably  so  as  to  leave  the  priority  of 
place  to  the  Psalter,  and  at  the  same  time  not  to  break 
the  group  of  Solomonic  books  ;  (4)  that  the  other  books 
follow  the  order  of  their  supposed  date  of  composition, 
the  Solomonic  writings  preceding  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah,  while  Daniel,  Esther,  and  Ezra  represent  the 
beginning,  the  middle,  and  the  close  of  the  exile  re- 
spectively. The  Books  of  Chronicles,  which  were 
ascribed  to  Ezra,  formed  an  appendix  to  the  whole 
collection,  the  position  of  the  books  agreeing  with  the 
inference  that  has  been  drawn,  as  we  saw  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  from  our  Lord's  words  in  Matt  xxiii.  '^^^  viz.  that 
they  were  either  the  last  book  or,  at  least,  the  last  narra- 
tive book  in  the  Hebrew  Canon. 

The  order  of  the  Hagiographa,  as  given  by  Jerome  in 
his  Prologns  Galeattis,  \s  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Eccle- 
siastes, Song  of  Songs^  Daniel,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther, 
while  Ruth  and  Lamentations  are  reckoned  among  'the 
Prophets."*  But  it  is  not  likely,  as  has  already  been 
shown,  that  he  supplies  us  with  the  accurate  order  of  the 
Hebrew  books.  It  is  more  probable  that  he  simply 
arranges  the  books  in  what  seemed  to  be  their  natural 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF   THE   BOOKS.  23 1 

chronological  order.  We  do  not  elsewhere  find  an  chap.  xii. 
instance  in  Hebrew  literature  in  which  the  Book  of 
Job  is  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Kethubim  ;  again, 
the  arrangement  of  Ezra  and  Esther  after  Chronicles 
suggests  the  influence  of  the  Christian  Bibles  rather 
than  the  reproduction  of  the  Hebrew  order.  It  is 
noticeable  that  Jerome  concedes  that,  in  the  opinion  of 
some  {nonntdli),  Ruth  and  Lamentations  ought  to  be 
ranked  among  the  Hagiographa,  in  which  case,  he  says, 
the  number  of  '  twenty-four '  books  of  Scripture  being 
obtained,  a  reference  to  them  is  found  in  the  vision  of 
St.  John,  where  the  four-and-twenty  elders  are  around 
the  Throne  (cf.  Rev.  iv.  4-10,  v.  8).  But  reasoning  of  that 
kind  is  obviously  not  conclusive  upon  a  question  of  fact. 
In  his  *  Preface  to  Daniel,'  he  says  categorically,  that  '  all 
Scripture  is  divided  by  the  Jews  into  three  portions,  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa,  that  is,  into 
five,  and  eight,  and  eleven  books.'  Here  his  testimony 
agrees  exactly  with  that  of  the  Hebrew  tradition,  and 
implies  the  inclusion  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations  among 
the  Hagiographa.  We  do  not,  therefore,  attach  any 
importance  to  the  variations  from  it  into  which  he 
occasionally  permits  himself  to  fall.  He  did  not  realise 
the  necessity  of  accurately  preserving  the  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion. He  could  not  foresee  the  confusion  that  might 
afterwards  arise  from  carelessness,  or  want  of  thorough- 
ness, in  his  use  of  it.  For  to  this,  and  nothing  else,  can 
we  ascribe  his  mention  of  the  tripartite  division  in  the 
Prologiis  Galeatus,  and  his  enumeration  of  the  books, 
immediately  afterwards,  in  an  order  which,  claiming  to 
be  the  Jewish  order,  fails  to  agree  with  that  of  genuine 
Hebrew  tradition,  or  even  with  his  own  explicit  state- 
ments elsewhere. 


23^     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  The  Order  of  the  books  of  the  Hagiographa  in  extant 
In  Hebrew  Hebrew  MSS.  shows  the  utmost  variety.  The  Massoretes 
^^^'  laid  down  no  rule  for  their  arrangement.  For  the  most 
part,  these  variations  may  be  divided  into  three  groups, 
representing  the  Talmudic,  the  Spanish,  and  the  German 
arrangement  ^.  According  to  one  tradition,  the  Tal- 
mudic preserves  the  Babylonian,  the  Spanish  the  Pales- 
tinian order. 

(a)  Taimu-       {o)  The  Talmudic.     This,  which  is  probably  the  most 
Ionian.  ^  ^  ancicnt  order,  is  given  in  Baba  bathra,  quoted  above.     It 

is  followed  in  many  of  the  best  MSS. 

It  is  the  order  in  which  the  books  are  given  in 
Halakoth  Gedoloth  (sub  fin.),  a  work  composed  in  the 
ninth  century  A.D.,  and  in  the  Anonymous  Chronicle ^ 
edited  by  Neubauer  {Jewish  Chronicles^  1887,  Oxford). 

(b)  Spanish,      {b)  Very  many  of  the  MSS.,  more  especially  Spanish, 
nian.  begin   the  Hagiographa   with  '  Chronicles,'   either   with 

the  view  of  connecting  the  Hagiographa  with  the  histori- 
cal group  that  preceded  it,  or  from  the  idea  that  a  book 
containing  the  primitive  genealogies  of  the  race  was 
entitled  to  a  priority.  The  order  commonly  followed 
in  these  MSS.  is— Chronicles,  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs, 
Ruth,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations,  Esther, 
Daniel,  Ezra  ^.  But  slight  variations  often  occur  :  e.  g. 
Job  is  often  placed  after  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  after 
Lamentations. 

It  will  be  observed,  that,  according  to  this  order,  the 
Solomonic  books  are  separated  from  one  another,  and 


*  For  the  distinction  into  Spanish  and  German  MSS.,  see  Elias  Levita's 
Massoreth  Ha-Massoreth,  ed,  Ginsburg,  p.  120. 

^  To  this  class  belongs  the  MS.  of  the  Firkovvitzsch  collection  in  the 
Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg  (Cod.  B.  19''),  which  contains  the  whole 
O.  T.,  and  is  dated  loio ;  the  date,  however,  is  not  free  from  doubt. 


THE   ARRANGEMENT  OF   THE   BOOKS.  233 

that  the  Five  Megilloth  (Ruth,  Song,  Eccles.,  Lam.,  Esth.)  chap.  xii. 
are  kept  together,  although  not  in  the  order  of  the  sacred 
seasons,  with  which  they  were  associated  in  the  Syna- 
gogue services.  The  arrangement  is,  therefore,  more 
artificial  than  the  Talmudic,  less  so  than  that  which  we 
notice  next. 

(c)  The  commonest  order  of  the  books  in  the  MSS.  (c)  German, 

Printed 

is  that  of  the  German  MSS.,  which  has  been  followed  Editions. 
in  the  printed  editions.  The  arrangement  ^  is  in  three 
groups :  firstly,  the  Poetical  books,  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Job;  secondly,  the  Five  Rolls  or  Megilloth,  Song  of 
Songs,  Ruth,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations,  Esther  ; 
thirdly,  the  Narrative  books,  Daniel,  Ezra-Nehemiah, 
Chronicles.  The  following  points  of  interest,  in  con- 
nexion with  this  arrangement,  may  here  be  recorded. 

(i)  The  group  of  poetical  books  was  sometimes /J?^//r/2/ 
referred  to  in  Jewish  literature  by  the  name  ' Emeth 
(  =  ^ Truth')  (n  72 1^),  a  Hebrew  word  consisting  of  the 
initial  letters  of  Job,  Proverbs,  and  Psalms.  But,  in  the 
MSS.,  the  Psalter  as  the  most  important  book  of  the 
Kethubim  stands  first,  while  Proverbs  and  Job  are  con- 
stantly interchanged,  Job,  as  the  reputed  work  of  Moses, 
being  placed  before  that  of  Solomon. 

(2)  The  second  group  consists  of  five  books,  which  t^MegiUoth. 
are  used  for  public  reading  in  the  Synagogue  on  cer- 
tain sacred  seasons.  The  Song  of  Songs  is  read  at  the 
Feast  of  Passover,  Ruth  at  the  Feast  of  Weeks  or  Pen- 
tecost, Lamentations  on  the  day  of  the  Destruction  of 
Jerusalem  (9th  of  Ab),  Ecclesiastes  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, Esther  at  the  Feast  of  Purim.  The  succession  of 
the  sacred  days  determined  the  order  of  the  books  in 
many  MSS.,  and  in  the  printed  Bibles  ;  and  the  name 
of  the  Five  Rolls  or  Megilloth  was  given  to  the  group 


234  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  bccausc  they  were  written  on  separate  rolls  to  be  read 
on  these  particular  occasions,  according  to  post-Talmudic 
liturgical  usage. 

But  the  MSS.  give  the  Megilloth  arranged  with 
almost  every  possible  variety  of  order.  The  most 
common  variations  are  Ruth,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of 
Songs,  Lamentations,  Esther;  and  Ruth,  Song  of 
Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations,  Esther,  in  both  of 
which  the  chronology  of  the  books  determines  the 
order. 

In  such  variations,  as  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs, 
Lamentations,  Ruth,  Esther,  or  Ruth,  Esther,  Eccle- 
siastes, Song  of  Songs,  Lamentations,  the  grouping  is 
probably  modified  according  to  subject-matter. 

For  instances  of  these  varieties  see  Kennicott's  Biblia 
Hebraica.     Cf.  Excursus  C. 

(3)  In  the  last  group  of  the  Hagiographa,  the  com- 
monest variation  in  the  order  in  the  MSS.  is  caused  by 
the  placing  of  Chronicles  before  the  Psalms ;  and  there 
are  also  numerous  cases  in  which  Daniel  stands  before 
Esther,  doubtless  for  chronological  reasons. 
Another  Another  arrangement  of  the  books  is  referred  to  in 

order.  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  according  to  which  three  sub- 
divisions were  recognised,  (i)  the  Former  Kethubim, 
Ruth,  and  the  Triad  called  *  the  Greater  Kethubim,' 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job ;  (2)  the  Lesser  Kethubim,  or  the 
Triad,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations  ;  (3) 
the  Latter  Kethubim,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra-Nehemiah, 
Chronicles.  (See  Fiirst,  who  quotes  Berakoth  $>]  a  and 
b,  Kanon  des  Alien  Testaments^  pp.  60  and  82.)  But  it 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  ever  in  general  use. 
Division  of  The  sub-division  of  the  Pentateuch  into  five  books 
belongs  possibly  to  its  original  formation.     The  division 


THE   ARRANGEMENT   OF   THE   BOOKS.  235 

of  the  Psalter  into  five   books   was   doubtless  made  in  Chap.  xii. 
imitation  of  it. 

The  division  of  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra^,  into 
two  books  each  originated  in  Alexandria  ;  and  was  not 
introduced  into  Hebrew  Bibles  until  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury (Bomberg  Bible,  1521). 

In  connexion  with  the  arrangement  of  the  books,  we  Sections 

1  .1  1  •    1        1         1         1  r  ''  (^^osed^  and 

may  here  mention  the  system  by  which  the  books  01  ^open: 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  divided  into  sections.  A 
passage  or  section,  '  Parashah,'  was  marked  off  by  spaces 
or  gaps  in  the  writing.  Small  sections  denote  slight 
change  of  thought,  and  correspond  to  our  paragraph. 
Large  sections  denote  change  of  subject,  and  are  more 
akin  to  our  chapter,  (i)  A  small  section,  or  *  Parashah,' 
was  denoted  by  a  small  gap  in  the  writing,  the  space  of 
three  letters  being  left  open.  This  was  called  a  *  closed 
section,'  or  *  Parashah  sethumah,'  and  in  the  space  the 
letter  '  S '  (d)  was  inserted,  representing  the  word 
'  Sethumah.'  The  section  was  called  '  closed,^  because 
the  line  in  the  official  copies  was  not  left  open ;  the 
writing  was  resumed,  after  the  space,  in  the  same  line. 
(2)  A  large  section  was  denoted  by  a  complete  break  in 
the  line  ;  in  the  old  copies  the  rest  of  the  line  was  left 
completely  open,  and  in  later  copies  the  space  of  nine 
letters  was  left  open.  In  consequence  of  the  line  having 
been  left  completely  open,  the  long  section  was  called 
*  open,'  '  Parashah  pethukhah ' ;  and  where  it  occurred, 
the  letter  *  P  '  (?:),  representing  '  Pethukhah,'  was  in- 
serted. 

Both  these  sections  appear  in  the  Torah,  and  in  Baer's 

^  In  some  MSS.,  Nehemiah  was  separated  by  one  blank  line  from  Ezra. 
But  it  was  always  regarded  as  part  of  the  same  book,  and  was  referred  to 
unto  the  same  title,  that  of  Ezra. 


use. 


236  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  edition  of  the  Massoretic  text  they  are  given  also  in  the 
other  books  of  the  Hebrew  Canon ^. 

The  number  of  the  sections  given  is  not  the  same  in 
all  MSS.  But  the  number  of  '  closed  sections '  in  the 
Torah  is  between  370  and  380,  the  number  of  '  open 
sections '  between  280  and  290. 

Synagogue  Quitc  distinct  frotti  these  sections  is  the  Liturgical 
Division  into  sections  for  the  Synagogue  service.  The 
lesson  from  the    Torah   was  called  the  Parashah,  that 

Babylonian  from  the  Nebiim  the  Haphtarah.  The  Babylonian 
Lectionary  was  arranged  so  that  the  whole  Torah  could 
be  read  through  in  the  year  [Megilla,  31 3).  There  were 
therefore  fifty-four  '  Parshiyyoth  2.'  They  begin  as  a  rule 
with  the  commencement  of  one  of  the  sections  just  de- 
scribed, thirteen  times  beginning  simultaneously  with 
'  closed '  sections,  thirty-five  times  with  the  '  open ' 
sections.  In  the  former  case  the  lesson  was  marked  by 
a  thrice  repeated  '  S '  (DDD),  in  the  latter  by  a  thrice 
repeated  '  P '  (CCD).  Only  in  Gen.  xlvii.  28  does  a 
lection  begin  at  a  passage  which  does  not  happen  to 
introduce  either  a  *  closed  '  or  an  '  open  '  section. 

The  lessons  from  the  Prophets  were  passages  selected 
so  as  to  correspond  with  the  lessons  from  the  Law. 
Thus,  the  'Haphtarah,'  Isaiah  xlii.  5-xliii.  11,  corre- 
sponded to  and  was  read  on  the  same  day  with  the 
'  Parashah,'  Gen.  i.  i-vi.  9.  The  '  Haphtaroth,'  however, 
are  not  indicated  in  the  Massoretic  text ;  but  attention 
is  called  to  them  in  the  Massoretic  notes. 


^  Evidence  of  a  pre-Talmudic  system  of  sections  is  to  be  found  in  Mark 
xii.  26  IvL  rov  ^drov,  Rom.  xi.  2  ev  'HAta. 

2  The  name  '  Parashah  '  denotes  '  section '  or  *  division  ' ;  the  name 
'  Haphtarah,'  '  conclusion '  or  *  dismissal,'  the  Lesson  from  the  Prophets 
being  read  at  the  end  of  the  semce.     Cf  Missa. 


THE  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  BOOKS.      %'>^'] 

Among  the  Palestinian  Jews  a  different  lectionary  chap.  xii. 
was  used,  according  to  which  the  Law  was  divided  into  Palestinian. 
154  lessons  and  was  read  through  every  three  years. 
The  Palestinian  lectionary  was  undoubtedly  of  greater 
antiquity  than  the  Babylonian.  Both  systems  are  referred 
to  in  the  Talmud  [Meg,  %^b,  31^).  But  the  practical 
convenience  of  having  the  lectionary  conterminous  with 
the  calendar  probably  led  to  the  general  adoption  of  the 
Babylonian  system^.  (See  the  articles  by  Dr.  J.  Theodor 
inM.G.W.J.,  1885.) 

It  has  often  been  too  hastily  assumed  that  the  books 
of  the  Hagiographa  were  never,  in  the  pre-Talmudic 
period,  used  for  any  purpose  in  the  Synagogue  services. 
But  the  fact  that  books  of  the  Hagiographa  were  liable, 
from  one  cause  or  another,  to  be  removed  from  public 
reading  {genuzini)  leads  us  to  suspect  that,  at  the  time 
when  this  could  take  place,  extracts  were  wont  to  be 
read  from  the  third  group  as  well  as  from  the  Prophets. 
Perhaps  this  was  the  case  before  the  Lectionary  Cycle 
had  been  finally  reduced  to  a  system.  In  connexion 
with  this  conjecture  Mr.  Schechter  has  called  attention 
to  the  Mussaph  Prayer  in  Rosh  HashanaJi^  containing 
extracts  from  all  three  groups  of  Scripture,  which  formed 
the  basis  of  religious  exhortations  at  the  Synagogue  ser- 
vices. The  Kethubim  may  thus  have  been  used,  along 
with  the  Torah  and  Nebiim,  for  homiletic  purposes, 
although  never,  as  the  evidence  of  the  Targums  indicates, 
included  in  the  Lectionary. 

Lastly,  we  may  notice  the  division  into  chapters  and 
verses  that  has  been  adopted  in  the  printed  editions  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  division  into  chapters  is 
taken  from  a  Christian  source,  and,  if  the  principle  of  the 

^  Perhaps  as  late  as  the  14th  cent. 


238  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Chap.  XII.  division  into  verses  be  ultimately  of  Jewish  origin,  the 
numeration  adopted  was  borrowed  from  Rob.  Stephen's 
Edition  of  the  Vulgate  (1555).  The  Vulgate  division 
into  chapters,  made  in  the  13th  cent.,  was  first  employed 
upon  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  the  Hebrew  Concordance  of 
Isaac  Nathan  (1437-1448),  but  was  not  introduced  into 
regular  use  until  the  following  century.  It  first  appears 
in  the  Bomberg  Bible  of  1521.  The  division  into  verses, 
which  appeared  in  the  Editio  Sabioneta  of  the  Penta- 
teuch (1557),  does  not  seem  to  have  been  applied  to 
the  whole  Hebrew  Canon  before  the  edition  of  Athias 
(1661). 


EXCURSUS  A. 

The  Origin  of  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
according  to  tradition. 

The  legendary  accounts  of  the  formation   of  the  Hebrew  Excurs.a. 
Canon  require  separate  treatment.     They  may  be  classed  under 
two  main  heads  according  as  they  ascribe  the  work  to  Ezra  or 
to  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 

I.  The  Legend  of  Ezra  and  the  Books  of  Scripture. 

The  first  we  hear  of  the  tradition  that  Ezra  was  inspired  to  Esra  and 
recall  to  memory  and  to  restore  to  the  Jews  in  writing  their  ^scri^pt{ 
Scriptures  that  had  been  destroyed  by  the  Chaldeans,  is   the  ^  Esdr. 
account  given  in  the  Jewish  Apocalyptic  work,  2  (4)  Esdras, 
which  was  probably  composed  not  long  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem. 

In  chap,  xiv  it  is  related  that  Ezra,  having  been  warned 
of  God  that  his  end  was  near  at  hand,  bewailed  the  spiri- 
tual destitution  of  the  people,  'for  the  law  is  burnt,  therefore 
no  man  knoweth  the  things  that  are  done  of  Thee,  or  the  works 
that  shall  begin.  But  if  I  have  found  grace  before  Thee,  send 
the  Holy  Ghost  into  me,  and  I  shall  write  all  that  hath  been 
done  in  the  world  since  the  beginning  which  were  written  in 
Thy  law,'  &c.  (vv.  21,  22).  Ezra's  prayer  is  heard,  and  he  is 
commanded  to  retire  for  forty  days  in  company  with  five  chosen 
men,  Sarea  (Seraiah),  Dabria  (.?=Dibri),  Selemia  (Shelemiah), 
Ecanus  (?=Elkanah),  and  Asiel  (Asael),  taking  with  them  numer- 


'ure 
xiv. 


240  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  A.  ous  tablets  for  writing  (ver.  24).  Ezra  obeys,  and  the  revelation 
vouchsafed  to  him  is  described  as  follows : — *  So  I  took  the  five 
men,  as  he  commanded  me,  and  we  went  into  the  field,  and 
remained  there.  And  the  next  day,  behold,  a  voice  called  me, 
saying,  Esdras,  open  thy  mouth,  and  drink  that  I  give  thee  to 
drink.  Then  opened  I  my  mouth,  and,  behold,  he  reached  me 
a  full  cup,  which  was  full  as  it  were  with  water,  but  the  colour 
of  it  was  like  fire.  And  I  took  it,  and  drank ;  and  when  I  had 
drunk  of  it,  my  heart  uttered  understanding,  and  wisdom  grew 
in  my  breast,  for  my  spirit  preserved  {conservabat)  memory  : 
and  my  mouth  was  opened,  and  shut  no  more.  The  Highest 
gave  understanding  unto  the  five  men,  and  they  wrote  the  won- 
derful visions  (?)  of  the  night  that  were  told,  which  they  knew 
not  {0?',  '  in  letters  which  they  understood  not,'  cf.  Ae/k.  and  Ar.) ; 
and  they  sat  forty  days,  and  they  wrote  in  the  day,  and  at  night 
they  ate  bread.  As  for  me,  I  spake  in  the  day,  and  I  held  not 
my  tongue  by  night.  In  forty  days  they  wrote  ninety-four  {o/ker 
readings,  'two  hundred  and  four,'  '  nine  hundred  and  four ')  books. 
And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  forty  days  were  fulfilled,  that  the 
Highest  spake,  saying,  The  first  that  thou  hast  wriiten  publish 
openly,  that  the  worthy  and  unworthy  may  read  it ;  but  keep  the 
seventy  last,  that  thou  mayest  deliver  them  only  to  such  as  be 
wise  among  the  people  :  for  in  them  is  the  spring  of  under- 
standing, the  fountain  of  wisdom,  and  the  stream  of  knowledge.' 
(2  (4)Esdr.  xiv.  37-48.)' 

Whether  the  legend  which  is  thus  described  originated  with 
the  composer  of  the  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras,  or  whether  he  has 
merely  incorporated  an  existing  legend  into  his  book,  we  have 
no  means  of  deciding. 

He  wrote  at  a  time  (circ.  90  a.d.)  when  more  than  500  years 
had  elapsed  since  the  death  of  Ezra.  Josephus,  his  contem- 
porary, did  not  apparently  know  the  legend.  He  only  agrees 
with  it  so  far  as  to  express  his  belief,  that  no  Jewish  works  com- 

^  See  Excursus  D. 


EXCURSUS  A.  241 

posed  since  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  were  to  be  reckoned  in  the  Excurs.  a. 
sacred  Canon  ^  {Cont.  Ap.  i.  8).  ~ 

Devoid  of  historical  value  though  the  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras 
may  be,  the  passage  we  have  quoted  above  either  originates  or 
repeats  a  legend,  which  reflected  one  aspect  of  the  popular 
Jewish  opinion  respecting  the  service  rendered  by  Ezra  towards 
the  preservation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  That  opinion  rested 
on  the  account  in  Neh.  viii-x,  where  Ezra  promulgates  the  Book 
of  the  Law,  and  finally  establishes  its  authority. 

Later  Jewish  tradition,  while  it  almost  disregarded  Nehemiah,  Ezra  and 
exaggerated  freely  the  Scriptural  record  of  Ezra's  share  in  that  Tradition. 
transaction.  It  has  thus  however,  probably,  borne  true  witness 
to  the  deep  impression  produced  upon  the  imagination  of  the 
people  by  Ezra's  work  in  connexion  with  the  Torah,  Ezra 
in  Talmudic  tradition  was  a  second  Moses :  e.  g.  '  The  Torah 
was  forgotten  by  Israel  until  Ezra  went  up  from  Babylon 
and  reestablished  it'  {Succa.  20  a).  'And  Moses  went  up 
unto  God  (Ex.  xix.  3) ;  of  Ezra  it  is  said,  "  And  Ezra  went 
up  from  Babylon"  (Ezr.  vii.  6).  What  is  the  meaning  of 
this  expression  "  Go  up "  ?  It  has  the  same  meaning  in  the 
one  passage  as  in  the  other,  and  refers  to  the  Torah'  ^Jer. 
Meg.  cap.  i).  No  mention  is  made  in  Rabbinic  literature 
of  the  legend  contained  in  4  Esdras,  that  Ezra  was  super- 
naturally  empowered  to  recall  to  memory  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures; but  the  tradition  is  recorded,  that  he  was  said  to  have 
committed  to  writing  a  pure  copy  of  them,  and  to  have  deposited 
it  in  the  Temple  courts  {Moed  Qatan  1 8  h\ 

^  Cf. '  Up  to  that  time  (Alexander  the  Great)  the  prophets  prophesied 
through  the  Holy  Spirit,  from  thenceforth  the  wise  men  only  wrought,' 
Seder  Olam.,  p.  70,  ed.  Meyer,  1706.  Only  thirty-four  years  were  supposed 
to  have  elapsed  between  Ezra  and  Alexander.  That  Josephus  meant 
Ahasuerus,  when  he  speaks  of  Artaxerxes  in  Cont.  Ap.  i.  8,  is  shown  by 
a  comparison  of  Ant.  xi.  cap.  6  with  Ant.  xi.  cap.  5.  In  the  latter 
chapter,  speaking  of  the  Persian  King,  who  favoured  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
Josephus  calls  him  Xerxes,  son  of  Darius.  In  the  former  chapter,  speaking 
of  the  Persian  King,  who  married  Esther,  he  calls  him  Artaxerxes. 
R 


242  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  A.  The  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras  does  not  appear  to  have  exerted 
4  Esdras  i^^ch  influence  upon  later  Jewish  literature.  The  particular 
and  legend  contained  in  chap,  xiv,  seems,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  have 

Christian  .       i     ,  i         t»t-  i        i  •  r  i  •       • 

Tradition,  passed  unnoticcd  by  the  Midrashim.  A  reason  for  this  is, 
perhaps,  to  be  found  in  the  popularity  which  the  book  acquired 
among  the  Christians,  partly  also  in  the  fact  that  its  original 
language  was,  in  all  probability,  Greek.  From  the  Greek  the 
Fourth  Book  of  Esdras  was  translated,  apparently  by  Christians, 
into  Latin,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Aethiopic,  Armenian.  In  all  of  those 
versions  it  is  still  extant.  It  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by 
Christian,  not  by  Jewish,  hands. 

It  can  hardly  be  questioned,  that  it  was  from  this  source  that 
the  Christian  fathers  derived  their  legend,  that  Ezra  miraculously 
restored  the  Hebrew  books  and  formed  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 
Just  as  they  took  their  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint 
version  from  a  spurious  Alexandrine  work,  the  so-called  Letter 
of  Aristeas,  so  they  seem,  with  the  same  unquestioning  con- 
fidence, to  have  derived  their  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  from  a  pseudepigraphic  Greek  Apocalypse  of  the  close  of 
the  first  century  a.d.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  the  legend 
may  have  reached  them  through  some  other  more  trustworthy 
channel.  But  the  language  in  which  they  record  it  makes  the 
inference  most  probable,  that  the  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras  is  the 
source  from  which  the  stream  of  an  almost  unbroken  ecclesi- 
astical tradition  directly  flows. 

The  following  passages  will  illustrate  the  Patristic  treatment 

of  the  story  as  well  as  the  way  in  which  the  same  tradition  was 

repeated  from  generation  to  generation. 

irenaeus.      CiTc.  lyo  t-     Ircnacus  {Coutr.  Haer.,  lib.  iii.  p.  216,  ed.  Migne, 

p.  948)  :  '  And  it  is  surely  not  a  thing  to  be  marvelled  at,  that 

God  should  have  brought  this  to  pass  (i.  e.  the  miraculous 

preparation    of  the   lxx    version).      For,  when  the  people 

were  carried  away  captive  in  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 

the  Scriptures  were  utterly  destroyed ;  but,  after  the  space  of 

seventy  years  the  Jews  returned   to  their  own  land;    and 


I 


EXCURSUS  A.  243 


then  in  the  times  of  Artaxerxes,  king  of  the  Persians,  God  did  excurs.  a. 
inspire  Esdras,  the  priest,  who  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  set 
forth  in  order  all  the  words  of  the  prophets  that  had  gone 
before,  and  to  restore  to  the  people  the  law  that  had  been 
given  by  Moses/ 

Circ.  200  A. D.  Tertullian  {De  Cultu  Feminarum,  i.  3):  'As-  TerudUan. 
suredly,  if  it  had  been  destroyed  by  the  violence  of  the 
flood,  he,  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  could  have  reconstructed 
it  again,  just  as  is  well  known,  when  Jerusalem  had  been 
taken  and  destroyed  by  the  Babylonians,  the  whole  Canon 
{pmne  instrumentuni)  of  Jewish  literature  was  restored  by 
means  of  Esdras.' 

Circ.  200  A.  D.  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom.  \.  22,  ed.  Potter,  Clement  of 
i.  p.  410) :  'It  was  not  strange  that  by  the  inspiration  andria. 
of  God,  Who  hath  given  the  gift  of  prophecy,  should  also 
be  produced  the  translation,  which  was  a  kind  of  Greek 
prophecy,  seeing  also  that,  when  the  Scriptures  had  been 
destroyed  in  the  captivity  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Ezra,  the 
Levite,  the  Priest,  in  the  times  of  Artaxerxes,  King  of 
the  Persians,  being  inspired,  prophesied  and  renovated 
(ai/avcov/iei/os  TrpoecprjTevae)  all  the  ancient  Scriptures '  (cf.  Ire- 
naeus,  I.e.  above).  Id.  (i.  21,  ed.  Potter,  p.  392:  'Ezra — 
through  whom  (instead  of  St*  6v,  read  fit'  ov)  comes  to  pass  the 
redemption  of  the  people  and  the  recollection  [dvayvapio-fioi) 
of  the  inspired  (writings),  and  the  renovation  of  the  oracles  ' 

(avaKatvLO- [x6s  Xoyicov'j,  &C. 

253 1.    Origen    {Seleda    in    Psalmos,    ed.    Lommatzsch,    tom.  Origen. 
xi.  p.  371):    'Either  Ezra  recalled  these  (psalms)  also  to 
memory  along  with  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures,  or  the  wise 
men  of  old  among  the  Hebrews  collected  those  that  were 
current  as  each  man  s  memory  happened  to  serve  him.' 

Circ,  34ot.  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  v.  8.  15)  quotes  the  passage  Eusebms. 
from  Irenaeus  cited  above. 

Circ.  379 1.  Basil  the  Great,  in  his  Epistle  to  Chilo  [Epistolarum  Basil. 
Classis  I,  Epist.  xlii.  p.  129,  ed.  Migne,  iv.  p.  357), uses  the 
R  2 


244 


THE   CANON  OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Jerome. 


Theodoret. 


ExcuRs.  A.  words :  '  There  is  the  field  to  which  Ezra  withdrew  and  in 
which,  by  the  command  of  God,  he  indited  all  the  inspired 
books/  in  which  he  evidently  refers  to  4  Esd.  xiv.  37,  &c. 
Chrysostom,  407  t.  John  Chrysostom  (Horn,  in  Ep.  ad  Hebraeos,  cap.  v. 
Horn.  viii.  4,  ed.  Migne,  torn.  xii.  p.  74) :  '  War  came 
upon  them ;  they  slew  them  all,  they  cut  them  down,  the 
books  were  burned  in  flames.  Again  God  inspired  another 
wonderful  man,  I  mean  Ezra,  to  publish  them  (the  books), 
and  He  caused  them  to  be  constructed  from  out  of  the 
fragments  which  remained  {airb  rav  Xfiyj/dvau). 

Ctrc.  426 1.  Jerome  [Adversus  Helvidium,  De  perpetud  vir- 
ginitate  heatae  Mariae,  p.  212,  tom.  2,  p.  190,  ed.  Migne): 
'  Whether  you  choose  to  speak  of  Moses  as  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch,  or  of  Ezra  as  the  restorer  of  the  same  work.' 

Circ.  458 1.  Theodoret  (/«  PsaL  i.  p.  606,  ed.  Migne,  i.  p.  864) : 
*  One  hundred  and  twenty  years  before  their  translation 
i.  e.  the  lxx),  the  wondrous  Ezra,  filled  with  divine  grace, 
committed  to  writing  the  holy  books  (that)  owing  to  the 
negligence  of  the  Jews  and  the  enmity  of  the  Babylonians 
had  long  been  destroyed  (or,  corrupted,  8ia<f)dap€La-as). 

(?)  500-600 1.  Synopsis  Scripturae  Sacrae  (Pseudo-Athanas.),  cap. 
20  {Athanasii  Opera,  ed.  Migne,  tom.  iv.  p.  352) :  '  This  too 
is  related  of  Ezra,  that,  when  the  Scriptures  had  been  lost 
in  consequence  of  the  negligence  of  the  people  and  on 
account  of  the  long  period  of  the  captivity,  Ezra  himself  being 
a  noble  man,  and  of  good  ability,  and  a  diligent  student, 
preserved  all  their  contents  in  his  memory  {Kaff  eavrov),  and 
finally  produced  them  and  published  them  to  all,  and  to  this 
is  due  the  preservation  of  the  Scriptures.' 

59ot.  Leontius  {De  Sech's,  Act.  2,  §  8,  p.  632,  ap.  Gallandi  Bt'bl. 
Venet.  1788)  :  'When  Ezra  came  to  Jerusalem  and  found 
that  all  the  books  had  been  burned  at  the  time  when  the 
people  were  carried  away  captive,  he  is  said  to  have  written 
down  from  memory  the  two  and  twenty  books  which  we 
enumerated  above.' 


Synops. 
Script. 


I 


EXCURSUS  A.  245 


636 1.  Isidore  {De  Ortu  et  Ohiiu  Patrum,  cap.  Ix,  ed  Migne,  v.  Excurs.  a. 
I       p.   146):    'He  (Ezra)  was  a  writer  of  sacred  history,  and  Isidore. 
P      was  the  second  giver  of  the  Law  after  Moses ;   for,  after 
the  captivity,  he  restored  the  Law  which  by  the  Gentiles  had 
been  burned.' 

(?)  700-800  t.     De  Mirabilibus  Sacrae  Scrip turae^  cap,  xxxiii  DeMirab. 
(Pseudo- Augustine,  torn.  iii.  p.  2 191)  :  'At  which  time  Ezra    ^^' 
the  priest  of  God  restored  the  Law  which  had  been  burned, 
among  the  archives  of  the  Temple,  by  the  Chaldeans  \  for 
he  was  filled  with  the  same  Spirit  whereby  it  had  afore- 
time been  written.' 

73 7 1.  Bede  {In  Esdr.  et  Neh.  Prophetas  Allegor.  Expos.,  lib.  Bede. 
ii.  cap.  ix,  ed.  Migne,  i.  p.  859) :  '  Ezra  was  moreover  a 
ready  scribe  in  the  Law  of  Moses  ;  for  he  restored  the  Law 
that  had  been  destroyed.  He  rewrote  not  the  Law  only, 
but  also,  as  is  reported  currently  by  the  men  of  old  time, 
the  whole  Canon  (sertem)  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  had  all 
alike  perished  in  the  flames,  according  as  he  thought  the 
needs  of  readers  required.' 

856 1.  Rabanus  Maurus  {De  Instil.  Cleric,  lib.  ii.,  c.  54,  Rabanus 
ed.  Migne,  i.  p.  366) :  '  After  the  Jews  had  entered  Jeru- 
salem, he  (Ezra)  restored  all  the  ancient  sacred  books 
by  means  of  the  Divine  Spirit  of  Inspiration,  and  purified 
all  the  volumes  of  the  prophets  that  had  been  defiled  by 
the  Gentiles.  And  he  arranged  the  whole  Old  Testament 
into  four  and  twenty  books,  so  that  there  might  be  as  many 
books  in  the  Law  as  letters  in  the  Alphabet.'  (N.B.  The 
difference  in  the  number  of  the  letters  between  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Greek  Alphabet  was  presumably  not  known  to 
Rabanus  Maurus.) 

(?)  800-850  t.  Nicephorus  Callistus  {Eccles.  Hist,  lib.  iv.  cap.  15)  Niceph. 
quotes  the  passage  from  Irenaeus  cited  above. 

89 if.  Photius  {Ad  Amphilochium  Quaeslw,  ed.  Migne,  vol.  1,  p.  PhoHus. 
816):    '  The  books  perished  in  the  flames  at  the  time  of 
the  captivity.     Afterwards,  when  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  and 


246 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Rupert 
of  Deuts. 


Hugo  de 
St.  Victor. 


Petrus 
Cotnestor. 


i.        those  of  Babylon  used  to  send  to  one  another  the  oracles  of 
God,  the  Gentiles  laid  in  wait  and  destroyed  their  books. 
The  Jews,  on  their  side,  took  to  writing  in  characters  which 
the  Gentiles  could  not  understand^  and  from  this  cause  also 
the  uncertainty  arose  :  until,  at  length,  Ezra,  being  inspired, 
recalled  to  memory  all  (the  books)  and  committed  them  to 
writing.' 
1 135  t.     Rupert  of  Deutz  {De   Victoria    Verbi  Dei,  lib.  vii.  c. 
xxxii.   ed.  Migne,  iii.  p.   1380.):    ^What   ought   not   Ezra 
to   be  to   us?      For  we  ought   not   to  forget  that  it  was 
he    who   restored    the  Law,   and   that  by   him   the   Holy 
Scriptures  which  are  the  very  voice  of  the  Word  of  God 
that   had   been   scattered  far  and  wide  and  had  scarcely 
escaped    destruction    in    the    flames,    were    collected    and 
fashioned  anew   .  .  .  Verily,   that   imperishable    work,  the 
renewing  of  Holy   Scripture,  is  and  ever  will  be    a  per- 
formance of  more  enduring  memory,  greater  renown  and 
higher  excellence,'  &c. 
1140  t.   Hugo  de  St.  Victor  {Allegor.  in  Vet.  Test.,  lib.  viii.  c.  x. 
ed.    Migne,    i.    p.    730):    'Ezra   denotes    Christ;    for   he 
fashioned  anew  {re/ormavit)  Holy  Scripture.' 
iipSf.    Petrus   Comestor   {Liber  Judith,   cap.  v.   ed.    Migne, 
p.  1483):  'At  that  time  (i.e.  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes) 
Ezra,  of  the  house  of  Aaron,  restored  the  Law  which  had 
been  burned  by  the  Chaldeans.  ...  It  does  not  behove 
us  to  marvel  that  he,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  should  have 
restored  the  books,  seeing  that  many,  even  in  our  own  days, 
have  known  how  to  restore    (i.  e.  repeat  by  memory)  the 
Psalter,  the  Book  of  Hymns,  and  numerous  books  of  the 
same  class.' 
It  will  be  observed  that  Rupert  of  Deutz  lays  emphasis  on 
the  work  of  collecting  and  editing  the  sacred  books,  and  that 
Petrus  Comestor  endeavours,  by  introducing  a  comparison  with 
feats  of  memory  well-known  in  his  own  day,  to  minimize  the 
miraculous  element  in  the  legend.     The  improbability  of  the 


EXCURSUS  A.  Z47 

story  could  hardly  fail  to  impress  itself  upon  men's  minds.  But  Excurs.  a. 
it  was  not  until  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  that  men  found 
themselves  at  liberty  to  reject  a  form  of  legend  which  had  been 
current  for  so  many  centuries  in  the  Church.  Among  the 
Reformers  it  was  natural  enough  that  a  legend  which  had  no 
support  in  Scripture,  and  which  contained  so  unlikely  a  narra- 
tive, should  be  discredited. 

The  English  divine,  Whitaker,  may  be  taken  as  a  repre-  Reformers: 
sentative  of  the  opinion  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  In 
his  Disputation  on  Scripture,  written  in  1602  (pp.  11 4-1 16, 
ed.  Parker  Society),  he  mentions  the  legend.  '  There  are 
some,  however,  who  imagine  that  the  whole  Old  Testament 
perished  in  the  captivity.  This  suspicion,  perhaps,  arose 
from  considering  that,  when  the  temple  was  burnt,  all  that 
was  in  it  must  have  been  consumed  in  the  same  conflagration. 
Hence  they  believe  that  the  sacred  volumes  of  Scripture  must 
have  been  destroyed  in  the  flames ;  but,  that,  after  the  captivity, 
Ezra,  instructed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  published  these  afresh,  as  it 
were  agairi  recovered.'  He  here  quotes  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
Irenaeus,  Leontius,  Isidore,  and  Rabanus  Maurus,  and  then 
proceeds  :  *  They  affirm,  therefore,  two  things :  one,  that  the 
whole  sacred  and  canonical  Scripture  perished  in  the  Babylonian 
captivity ;  the  other,  that  it  w^as  restored  to  its  integrity  by  Ezra, 
instructed  and  inspired  in  a  wonderful  manner  by  the  direct 
agency  of  God.  But  the  falsehood  of  this  opinion  is  manifest* 
For  the  pious  Jews  had,  no  doubt,  many  copies  of  the  Scripture 
in  their  possession,  and  could  easily  save  them  from  that 
calamity.  What  man  in  his  senses  will  say  that  there  was  no 
copy  of  the  Scriptures  beside  that  in  the  temple?  Besides,  if  • 
these  books  had  been  deposited  in  the  temple,  would  not  either 
the  priests  or  somebody  else  have  been  able  to  rescue  them 
from  the  flames  ?  It  is  incredible  that  the  religious  Jews  should 
have  been  so  unmindful  of  piety  and  religion  as  to  keep  no 
copies  whatever  of  the  Scriptures  whilst  they  lived  in  Babylon, 
especially  while  they  had  such  men  among  them  as  Ezekiel  and 


248     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

.  Daniel.  But  it  is  certain  that  they  had  many  copies.  For  even 
Antiochus  himself  could  not  utterly  destroy  them  all,  though  he 
set  himself  to  do  so  with  the  utmost  zeal  and  sedulity.  Hence 
it  appears  that  there  were  everywhere  a  very  great  number  of 
copies ;  and  now  the  Babylonians  made  no  such  fierce  assault 
upon  the  sacred  books.  In  accordance  with  what  we  might 
expect  from  such  premises,  Ezra  is  simply  said,  Nehem.  viii,  to 
have  brought  the  book  of  Moses  and  read  it.  The  books  of 
Moses,  therefore,  and,  in  like  manner,  the  other  books  of  Scrip- 
ture, were  preserved  safe  in  the  captivity ;  and  we  have  now  no 
other,  but  the  very  same  books  of  Scripture  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  those  which  were  written  by  Moses  and  the  rest  of  the 
prophets.  However  it  is  very  possible  that  the  books,  which 
may  have  been  previously  in  some  disorder,  were  corrected  by 
Ezra,  restored  to  their  proper  places,  and  disposed  according  to 
some  fixed  plan  as  Hilary  in  his  prologue  affirms  particularly  of 
the  Psalms,  &c.* 

We  notice,  therefore,  with  especial  interest  the  position  of 
Bellarmine  (1542-1621),  who,  as  the  champion  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  against  the  Reformed  Churches,  might  be  thought  a  very 
unlikely  man  to  acknowledge  even  the  possibility  of  the  ancient 
traditional  view,  that  a  great  miracle  was  wrought,  being  erroneous. 
He,  however,  after  relating  the  tradition,  candidly  mentions  that 
'  there  is  another  view  according  to  which  Ezra  was  indeed  the 
restorer  of  the  sacred  books,  not  however  by  dictating  them  all 
afresh,  but  by  collecting  and  arranging  all  the  Scriptures,  of 
which  he  had  found  portions  in  different  places,  into  a  single 
volume,  as  well  as  by  correcting  them  wherever  they  had 
suffered  from  the  carelessness  of  copyists,  seeing  that  during 
the  whole  period  of  the  captivity,  when  the  Jews  were  without 
temple  or  tabernacle,  the  law  w^as  carelessly  preserved '  ^Opp, 
tom.  i.  lib.  2]  De  Verbo  Dei,  cap.  i). 
Coi-neiius  1568-1637.  We  uccd  quotc  only  one  other  authority,  the  emi- 
nent Roman  Catholic  "commentator,  Cornelius  a  Lapide  (van  der 
Steen),  whose  words  illustrate  the  change  of  view  in  reference  to 


a  Lapide. 


EXCURSUS   A.  249 

the  legend  {CommenL  in  Esdr.  et  Neh,,  Prolog,  p.  201).  After  excurs.a. 
quoting  Patristic  evidence  in  favour  of  the  legend  he  goes  on  to 
say :  '  Leo  Gastrins,  in  his  preface  to  Isaiah  iv,  supports  the 
same  view,  to  wit,  that  Ezra  restored  the  books  of  the  law  from 
memory.  Nor  is  this  wonderful.  For  that  is  even  more 
wonderful  which  we  read  of  St.  Antonius  of  Padua,  that  he 
knew  by  heart  (calluisse)  the  whole  of  Holy  Scripture,  insomuch 
that  he  was  called  by  the  Pope  "  The  Ark  of  the  Testament." 
"  For  he  had  the  pages  of  both  Testaments  alike  so  clearly  fixed 
in  his  memory,  that,  like  Ezra,  he  had  the  power,  if  occasion  had 
required  it,  of  completely  restoring  from  his  memory  the  whole 
Canon  of  sacred  literature,  even  though  all  the  MSS^.  had  been 
utterly  destroyed  " ;  so  says  the  author  of  his  life.  Nevertheless, 
although  this  opinion  appear  probable  on  account  of  the  weight 
of  Patristic  authority,  the  contrary  opinion  is  yet  far  more 
probable  and  based  on  certain  reasons,  to  wit,  that  the  sacred 
books  were  neither  all  *of  them  burned  by  the  Chaldeans,  nor 
restored  from  memory  by  Ezra.'  He  proceeds  to  give  his 
reasons.  The  first  is,  that  there  is  no  record  of  the  Chaldeans 
having  burned  the  Scriptures ;  and,  considering  the  number  of 
copies  in  use  in  Judea  and  elsewhere,  if  they  had  burned  them, 
they  could  not  possibly  have  completely  destroyed  them  all. 
The  second  reason  is,,  that  Daniel  (chap.  ix.  2),  in  the  first 
year  of  Darius,  possessed  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  and  .  other 
prophets,  and  was  in  the  habit  of  reading  it.  The  third  reason 
is,  that  Josephus  {Ant.Jud.,  lib.  xi.  i)  relates  how  Cyrus,  having 
been  shown  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (xlv)  which  he  had  fulfilled, 
became  kindly  disposed  to  the  Jews  in  consequence.  Cornelius 
a  Lapide  adds  as  yet  another  reason,  that  the  Fourth  Book  of 
Esdras  was  apocryphal,  and  that  'the  two  hundred  and  four 
books '  (the  Vulgate  reading)  written  by  the  five  men  at  Ezra's 
dictation  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  books  of  Scripture. 

We  shall  not  perhaps  attach  the  same  value  to  all  of  the  reasons 
thus  alleged.  But  it  is  clear  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  17th 
century  the  legend  that  Ezra  had  alone,  and  by  miraculous  aid, 


25o  THE   CANON   OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.A.  formed  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  had  become 
generally  discredited  and  discarded.  The  story  was  inherently 
improbable,  and  it  rested  on  no  historical  evidence. 

2.  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 
2.  The  Men  But  the  legend  respecting  Ezra  and  the  books  of  Holy  Scrip- 
Synl^gue!  ^^^^  could  not  be  dethroned  without  some  account  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  sacred  Canon  being  found  to  serve  as  its  substitute. 
Its  place  was  filled  by  the  tradition  of  '  The  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,'  which  had  the  twofold  advantage  of  offering  a  more 
probable  explanation  and  of  claiming  to  rest  upon  the  authority 
of  trustworthy  Hebrew  tradition.  For  more  than  three  centuries 
this  legend,  or  one  or  other  of  its  modern  modifications,  has 
held  the  field. 

The   reasons  for  its  general  acceptance  may  be  recognised 

without  difficulty.      The    revival  of  learning    in    the  fifteenth 

and  sixteenth  centuries  had  given  a  new  prominence  to  the 

study  of  Hebrew  and  a  fresh  authority  to  the  words  of  Jewish 

Origin  of    writers.      In   the   course    of  the   controversy  among   Hebrew 

in  Eiias       scholars    respecting   the  origin    and    date    of   the   Massoretic 

Levita's       system,  an  eminent  Jewish  writer,  Elias  Levita,  maintained  in 

Massoreih      •'  *' 

Ha-Masso-  an  important  work,  entitled  Massoreth  Ha  Massoreth  (1538), 
that  Ezra  and  his  companions,  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue, 
promulgated  the  correct  consonantal  text,  and  at  the  same 
time  collected  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  formed  the  Canon. 
Such  a  suggestion,  put  forward  at  a  time  when  it  seemed  im- 
possible to  defend  the  historical  character  of  the  ecclesiastical 
tradition  about  Ezra,  could  hardly  fail  to  command  attention 
and  to  find  a  welcome.  It  quickly  obtained  great  popularity. 
In  the  Hebrew  controversy  respecting  the  antiquity  of  the 
vowel-points,  the  subject  of  the  Great  Synagogue  was  frequently 
referred  to;  and,  although  very  opposite  opinions  were  freely 
expressed  by  able  men,  the  preponderance  of  learning,  among 
the  scholars  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  certainly  leaned  to  the 
side  of  the  new  suggestion.     The  most  important  work  dealing 


reth.'' 


I 


EXCURSUS  A.  251 


with  it  was  the  Tiberias  sive  Commentarius  Masorethicus  of  John  excurs.  a. 
Buxtorf,  published  at  Basle  in  1620.     This  book,  which  2i^-  Buxtorfs 
mirably  summarised  all  that  was  known,  in  the  beginning  of  the  '  i^iberias: 
sixteenth  century,  respecting  the  '  Massorah,'  according  to  Jewish 
tradition,  makes  frequent  allusions  to  '  the  Great  Synagogue '  as 
its  principal  source.     It  contains  all  the  principal  evidence  for 
'  the  Great  Synagogue '  to  be  found  in  Rabbinic  literature. 

The  weight  of  John  Buxtorfs  authority  told  enormously  in 
support  of  the  new  theory  upon  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon.  It  was  reinforced  by  that  of  his  son  John  Buxtorf  (1599- 
1664)  in  his  conflict  with  Morinus  and  Cappellus,  who  had  dared 
to  question  the  inviolable  character  of  the  Massoretic  text,  had 
impugned  the  antiquity  of  the  square  Hebrew  characters,  and 
even  thrown  doubts  upon  the  accuracy  of  Rabbinic  tradition 
generally,  and  respecting  the  Great  Synagogue  in  particular. 
The  *  Tiberias  '  appeared  in  a  new  edidon  in  1665,  when  it  was 
issued  by  John  James  Buxtorf,  the  grandson  of  the  author. 

All  subsequent  writers  have  quarried  from  the  Tiberias^  and  Acceptance 
the  influence  of  this  treatise  has  had  even  more  to  do  with  the  theory. 
general  acceptance  of   the  tradition  about  '  The   Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  '  than  the  earlier  work  of  Elias  Levita. 

The  hold  which  the  new  view  obtained  over  the  best  scholars 
of  the  seventeenth  century  may  be  exemplified  by  the  following 
quotations : — 

(i)  Brian  Walton,  Bishop  of  Chester  (1600-1661):  '  "Y\i^  Bp.  Walton. 
first  and  most  famous  edition  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  that  of  Ezra  (whom  the  Jews  call  a  second  Moses),  and  the 
Great  Sanhedrim,  or  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  after  the 
return  from  Babylon.  For  as  there  no  longer  existed  either 
the  Temple  or  the  Tabernacle,  where  the  authentic  copies  had 
formerly  been  deposited,  the  sacred  volumes  were  negligently 
kept  all  through  the  period  of  the  captivity.  This  being  the  case, 
Ezra  and  his  companions  collected  the  MSS.  from  various  quar- 
ters, arranged  them  in  order,  and  reduced  them  to  the  compass  of 
a  single  volume.     They  removed  the  corruptions  from  which 


252 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


ExcuRs.  A.  the  text  had  suffered,  and  restored  it  to  its  former  pure  state ; 
and  thus  they  estabUshed  the  Canon.  Their  work  of  establish- 
ing the  Canon  possessed  truly  divine  authority;  for  there 
belonged  to  that  Council  not  only  Ezra  but  also  the  last  of  the 
Prophets,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  and  (as  some  think) 
Daniel,'  &c.  (Walton's  Polygloti.  Prolegg.  iv.  2,  London  1657.) 

Hottinger.  (2)  'It  has  been  an  incontrovertible  principle  as  well  with 
Christians — those  indeed  who  have  not  a  fungus  for  a  brain — 
as  with  Jews,  that  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  all,  at 
one  and  the  same  time,  established,  with  an  authority  absolutely 
divine,  by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.'  (Hottin- 
ger,  Thesaurus  Philologicus,Y\h.  i.  c.  2.  i,  p.  in,  ed.  2,  Zurich 
1659.) 

Leusden.  (3)  Lcusdcn  (1629-1699):  *By  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 

are  understood  not  those  who  were  members  of  ordinary 
Councils,  but  those  who  were  admitted  to  that  extraordinary 
Council  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  men.  This  Council  reduced 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  compass  of  a  single 
volume,  separated  Holy  Scripture  from  the  fictitious  books  of 
Pseudo-Prophets,  and  rendered  many  other  services  in  connexion 
with  the  reformation  of  the  Church,  and  in  connexion  with  the 
sacred  books,  by  purifying  (emuscando)  them  from  the  errors 
that  had  become  attached  to  them.'  {Philologicus  Hebraeus, 
Dissertatio  ix.  c.  20,  ed.  2,  Utrecht,  1672.) 

Carfsovuis.  (4)  Carpzovius  (1767) :  'Ezra's  first  and  last  thought  being  for 
the  sacred  volumes,  he,  in  conjunction  with  the  other  members 
of  the  Great  Synagogue,  among  whom  the  Jews  reckon  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  Malachi,  and  Nehemiah,  collected  from  all  sides  the 
MSS.  of  the  Scriptures,  arranged  them  in  order,  separated  them 
from  the  miscellaneous  writings  which  had  crept  in  among  them ; 
and  he  was  the  first  of  all  to  reduce  the  books  to  the  compass  of 
the  single  volume  and  *  System '  which  we  call  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, from  which  time  no  other  book  has  been  admitted  into  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.'  {Introd.  in  Itbr.  Canon.  BibL  V.T.^ 
P.  i.  2.  I,  Leipzig  1757.) 


I 


EXCURSUS  A.  353 


There  were,  however,  many  scholars  who  strongly  objected  to  Excurs.  a. 
the  new  view.     These  were  men  who  had  no  great  confidence  opposition 
in  the  accuracy  of  Jewish  tradition.     Among  them    we  may  J^^^l, 
mention  the  names  of  Jacob  Alting  and  Franciscus  Burmann, 
both  eminent  scholars. 

Alting  (i6i8--i697)  :  '  For  the  Great  Synagogue  lived  neither  Aiting. 
at  one  time  nor  in  one  place ;  that  Synagogue  had  no  existence, 
but  is  a  fiction  of  the  traditionalists  who  could  nowhere  else 
find  any  support  for  their  TrapaSoo-i?.'  (Jacobus  Altingius, 
Epist.  ad  Pertgon.,  op.  tom.  v.  p.  382,  quoted  by  Rau,  P.  i. 
cap.  iii.  vii.) 

Burmann  (1632-1679):  'But  that  account  of  the  Congress,  Burmann. 
I  speak  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  since  there  is  no  mention  of  it 
in  Scripture,  and  it  is  open  to  various  objections,  is  more  dis- 
putable than  certain.'     (Franciscus  Burmannus,  Synops.  TheoL, 
tom.  i.  lib.  iv.  37.  7,  Utrecht  1671.) 

1727.  The  objections  to  the  whole  story  of  the  Qr^dii  Rau' s  ' Dia- 
Synagogue  were  put  forward  in  a  very  complete  and  interesting  syn.  Mag: 
form  by  Joh.  Rau  in  his  Diatribe  de  Synagoga  Magna,  pub- 
lished at  Utrecht  in  1727.  This  work  is  the  most  considerable 
monograph  upon  the  subject.  But  it  was  doubtless  written  with 
a  certain  degree  of  animus ;  for,  besides  the  passage  just  quoted 
from  Franz  Burmann,  he  placed  on  the  title-page  of  his  work 
the  words  of  Hugo  Grotius,  *  The  Jews  are  the  worst  teachers  of 
history.  For  ever  since  they  w^re  driven  from  their  country, 
all  their  history  has  been  marred  with  crass  errors  and  legends, 
to  which  absolutely  no  credence  is  to  be  given  unless  other 
witnesses  be  brought  in  their  support.'  {Comm.  in  Matt.  xxiv. 
24.)  Still,  his  work  must  be  regarded  as  a  protest  against  the 
blind  veneration  for  the  mere  authority  of  the  great  Hebrew 
scholars,  and  against  the  uncritical  acceptance  of  Jewish  tradi- 
tion. It  gives  a  full  account  of  the  tradition  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,  shows  how  devoid  it  is  of  historical  support,  and 
seeks  to  explain  its  origin. 

Another  shorter  work  by  Aurivillius,  published  in  his  Disser-  AurivHUus. 


254  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

EXCURS.A  iationes  which  were  edited  by  Michaelis  in  1790  (Leipzig), 
dealt  with  the  same  subject  on  very  similar  lines. 

Modifica-  The  objections  that  were  levelled  against  the  story  of  '  the  Men 

*iheorf/^^  of  the  Great  Synagogue  '  succeeded  in  causing  certain  modifica- 
tions in  it  to  be  accepted.  Jewish  tradition  which  regarded  the 
whole  interval  of  time  between  the  Return  and  the  age  of  Alexander 
as  included  within  thirty-four  years,  and  which  called  Zechariah, 
Haggai,  Mordecai,  and  Simon  the  Just,  members  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  along  with  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Malachi,  could 
not  be  accepted  in  a  literal  sense.  Accordingly,  it  became 
necessary  to  introduce  certain  modifications  into  the  story. 
Variations  were  from  time  to  time  suggested.  According  to  some, 
the  Great  Synagogue  was,  as  the  tradition  had  asserted,  an 
assembly  of  Jewish  Divines,  who  constituted  a  special  court,  deal- 
ing only  with  matters  of  religion,  during  the  whole  period  between 
Ezra  and  Simon  the  Just  (445-290  or  196  b.c.)  According  to 
others,  e.g.  Selden,  De  Synagogis  (1679),  it  was  the  same  as  the 
Sanhedrim  of  later  times.  According  to  John  Lightfoot,  'the 
date  of  its  first  institution  is  not  certain,  but  under  this  tide  the 
Jews  include  the  whole  administration  of  the  nation  from  the 
time  of  the  return  from  Babylon  down  to  the  time  of  the  presi- 
dency of  Simon  the  Just'  [Opera  posthunia,  Memorabilia,  p.  86, 
ed.  1699). 

In  modern  times  the  story  of  'the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue' 
has  found  favour  up  to  a  very  recent  date.  But  there  has  been 
a  very  considerable  diversity  shown,  and  not  a  little  freedom 
exercised,  in  the  handling  of  the  tradition.  The  following 
references  will  serve  as  illustrations  : — 

Herzfeid.  Hcrzfcld,  in  his  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israels  (i^e  Band,  1863, 

Leipzig),  devotes  his  Twelfth  Excursus  (pp.  380  ff.)  to  the  careful 
discussion  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  which  he  identifies  with  the 
Sanhedrim. 

Cinsbui'i-.  Ginsburg,    in   his    edition    of  Levitds   Exposition    of  the 

Massorah'  (London  1867,  note  on  pp.  107,  108),  says  :  'The 
Great  Synagogue  ....  denotes  the    Council,  or  Synod,  first 


I 


EXCURSUS  A.  2S5 


appointed  by  Nehemiah,  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Excurs.  a. 
Babylonish  captivity,  to  reorganize  the  religious  life  of  the  people. 
It  consisted  originally  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  members, 
comprising  the  representatives  of  the  following  five  classes,  of 
the  Jewish  nation.  (i)  The  Chiefs  of  the  Priestly  Divisions  ; 
(ii)  the  Chiefs  of  the  Levitical  Families;  (iii)  the  Heads  of 
•  the  Israelite  Families ;  (iv)  Representatives  of  the  Cities,  or 
the  Elders ;  and  (v)  the  Doctors  of  the  Law,  or  the  Scribes. 
The  number  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  was,  however,  not 
adhered  to  after  the  death  of  Nehemiah,  and  ultimately  it  was 
reduced  to  seventy.  The  period  of  its  duration  extended  from 
the  latter  days  of  Nehemiah  to  the  death  of  Simon  the  Just, 
B.C.  410-300;  thus  embracing  about  one  hundred  and  ten 
years.' 

Westcott  (Bible  in  the  Churchy  p.  300,  Appendix  A,  1863-  Westcou. 
1885):  'This  Great  Assembly  or  Synagogue,  whose  existence 
has  been  called  in  question  on  insufficient  grounds,  was  the 
great  council  of  the  nation  during  the  Persian  period,  in  which 
the  last  substantive  changes  were  made  in  the  constitution  of 
Judaism.  The  last  member  of  it  is  said  to  have  been  Simon 
the  Just  (c.  B.C.  310-290).  It  was  organised  by  Ezra,  and,  as 
commonly  happens,  the  work  of  the  whole  body  was  transferred 
to  its  representative  member.  Ezra  .  .  .  probably  formed  a 
collection  of  the  prophetic  writings;  and  the  Assembly  gathered 
together  afterwards  such  books  as  were  still  left  without  the 
Canon,  though  proved  to  bear  the  stamp  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.' 

Fiirst  {Kanon  des  Alt.  Test.^  Leipz.  1868,  pp.  22,  23)  :  'Dieses  Fiirst. 
grosse  Kollegium  oder  der  Staatsrath  hatte  seine  erste  Begrun- 
dung  im  zwanzigsten  Jahre  des  persischen  Konigs  Artaxer- 
xes  Langhand  (Artachschasta)  d.  h.  am  24.  Tischri  des  Jahres 
444  V.  Chr.  gefunden,  als  Nehemijah  nach  Jerusalem  gekommen 
war,  um  nachdem  die  Stadtmauern  bereits  im  Monat  Elul  fertig 
geworden,  eine  grosse  religios-constituirende,  aus  Priestern, 
Leviten  und   Volksfiirsten   oder   Stammhauptern  (Rasche   ha- 


2S6  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.A.  Abot)  bestehende  Versammlung  nach  dem  Laubenfeste  abzu- 
halten,  welche  die  seit  515  v.  Chr.  (i.  Jahr  des  Darius),  namlich 
seit  den  70  Jahren  nach  der  Errichtung  des  Serubbabel'schen 
Tempels,  eingerissenen  Missbrauche  und  Unordnungen  beseiti- 
gen  und  iiberhaupt  ein  neues  Nationalleben  anregen  soUte. 
Durch  Entwerfung  und  Unterzeichnung  eines  Statuts  und  Ver- 
trags  wurde  dieses  Kollegium  organisirt.  Unter  persischer 
Oberhoheit  leitete  es  Judaa  religios  und  politisch  128  {sz'c)  Jahre 
(444-328),  indem  es  sich  stets  bis  zur  von  Anfang  an  fixirten 
Zahl  von  120  Mitgliedern  erganzte,  dann  unter  griechisch- 
seleukidischer  Oberhoheit  132  Jahre  (328-196  v.  Chr.),  d.  h.  bis 
zum  Tode  des  Hochpriesters  Schimon  b.  Chonaw  II.' 
Deren-  Derenbourg  (Essai sur  t Histoire  et  la  Geographie  de  la  Palestine ^ 

^^**'^'  Paris  1867,  chap.  ii.  pp.  33,  34) :  'Le  nom  special  des  docteurs 

qui  eurent  alors  la  ferme  volont^  de  propager  la  connaissance  de 
la  parole  divine,  d'expliquer  la  loi  a  tons  ceux  qui  voulurent 
I'dtudier,  d'augmenter  le  nombre  des  disciples  et  de  former  de 
nouveaux  maitres,  de  resserrer  la  chaine  des  prescriptions  afin 
d'en  assurer  mieux  I'observation  et  qui  formbrent  plutot  un 
college  qu'un  s^nat,  un  corps  de  savants  qu'une  autorit^  con- 
stitute, dtait,  comme  nous  Tavons  ddja  dit,  celui  d'hommes  de  la 
Grande  Synagogue.  .  .  .  Nous  considdrons  ce  qui  est  racontd 
de  la  Grande  Synagogue  comme  historique.  Un  corps  sem- 
blable,  nous  croyons  I'avoir  d^montr^,  r^pondait  a  la  situation; 
la  transformation  qui  s'est  op^r^e  au  sein  du  judaisme  est  comme 
Teffet  incontestable  d'une  cause  contestde  mal  k  propos;  le 
pontificat  seul  aurait  amene  encore  une  fois  les  consequences 
funestes  que  nous  avons  vues  se  produire  dans  I'intervalle  qui 
s'ecoule  entre  le  depart  de  Z^robbabel  pour  Babylon  et  Tarriv^e 
d'Ezra  a  Jerusalem.  Nous  ajouterons  que  le  nom  d'Ansche 
Keneset  haggedSlah,  qui  ne  s'est  jamais  appliqu^  qu'aux  hommes 
de  ce  temps,  dont  on  ne  comprend  plus  meme  tout  ^  fait  le 
sens,  et  qui,  au  ii©  siecle,  c^da  la  place  a  un  nom  nouveau  et 
designant  une  organisation  plus  artificielle,  doit  avoir  ^t^  port^ 
par  un  corps  qui  a  exists,  qui  a  vecu.     L'imagination  aurait  et^ 


EXCURSUS  A.  257 

chercher  une  denomination  ancienne,  r^pondant  a  une  institu-  Excurs.  a. 
tion  gdn^ralement  connue.' 

C.  H.  H.  Wright  {Ecclesiasies,  London  1883,  Excursus  iii-  P-  -^'2^^^«- 
486):  'Hoffman  further  argues  that  even  in  the  Books  of  Ezra  wrighi 
and  Nehemiah  mention  is  made  of  a  senate  at  Jerusalem  under 
various  names  (Ezra  x.  8,  vi.  7,  14  ;  Neh.  x.  i,  xi.  i,  &c.).  The 
governing  body  was  then  composed  of  priests  and  Levites 
under  the  headship  of  the  High  Priest,  and  of  Israelitish  laymen 
under  the  headship  of  the  Prince  of  the  House  of  Judah.  ''  The 
Elders  of  the  House  of  Israel "  were  all  probably  "  scribes," 
skilled  in  the  Law  like  Ezra  himself  (Ezra  vii.  25).  Such  a  body 
would  naturally  be  renewed  from  time  to  time,  and  the  name  of 
"  the  Great  Synagogue  "  was  given  to  it  in  later  days  not  only 
on  account  of  the  important  work  it  performed  in  the  recon- 
struction and  preservation  of  the  Jewish  Church  and  State  in 
troublous  times,  but  also  because  its  members  were  originally 
more  numerous  than  those  of  the  Sanhedrin  of  a  later  period, 
or  even  of  the  council  of  elders  which  occupied  its  place  in 
earlier  and  happier  days.  Though  we  cannot  narrate  the 
history  of  the  disruption  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  after  the  death  of  Simon  the  Just  it  was  shattered 
by  internal  dissensions,  &c.  .  .  .  "  The  Great  Synagogue  "  was 
broken  up  some  years  previous  to  the  heroic  struggles  of  the 
Maccabees/ 

See  also  Bloch's  Siudien  zur  Geschichte  der  Sammlung  der 
alihehraischen  Likralur,  Breslau  1870,  pp.  99-132. 

It  is  time  now  to  turn  from  the  modern,  and  often  conflicting, 
representations  of  the  old  tradition  to  the  actual  evidence  upon 
which  it  all  rests. 

For  this  purpose  it  will  be  convenient,  firstly,  to  quote  the  '  The  Great 
description  which  Joh.  Buxtorf  gives  of '  the  Great  Synagogue,'   ^^"^ 
seeing  that  most  of  the  subsequent  descriptions  have  been  drawn 
from  his  Tiberias \  and,  secondly,  to  sift  and  analyse  the  evidence 
which  he  and  others  cite  in  support  of  his  account.     For,  as 

S 


258  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

EXCURS.A.  Buxtorf  gives  no  dates  in  his  citation  of  authorities,  the  reader 
is  apt  to  carry  away  a  very  misleading  impression  from  the 
array  of  Hebrew  evidence  advanced  in  support  of  his  state- 
ments, unless  he  is  able  to  check  them  by  a  knowledge  of  their 
age  and  literary  value. 
described  in  Joh.  Buxtorfi  Tiler  id  s  s.  Comment.  Masot'eihicus,  recognitus 
'Tiberias:  ^^  ^  J^^-  ^uxtorf,  fil.,  ed.  nov.  accurante  Joh.  Jac.  Buxtorf.  nep. 
{Basileae,  1665.) 

p.  22  b,  cap.  X.  '  "  The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue."  Such 
is  the  name  given  by  the  Jews  to  the  Great  Council  assembled  at 
Jerusalem  by  Ezra,  the  priest,  its  president,  after  the  Babylonian 
exile.  By  its  aid  and  support  he  restored  the  whole  Church  of 
Jerusalem  and  Judea,  purged  it  of  many  corruptions,  faults,  and 
vices  contracted  in  Babylon,  and  constructed  it  afresh.  .  .  . 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  associated  with  themselves  certain  others 
of  the  more  noble  and  learned  of  the  people,  so  that  the  entire 
Council,  or  Ecclesiastical  Senate,  embraced  the  number  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  men.  ...  It  is  said  in  the  l^odk  Juchasin, 
fol.  13,  respecting  this  Council : — "Ezra's  house  of  judgment  is 
that  which  is  called  the  Great  Synagogue,  which  restored  the 
Crown  to  its  former  state."  Among  the  Jews  there  were  three 
crowns,  of  the  Law,  of  the  Priesthood,  and  of  the  Kingdom.  .  .  . 
The  Crow^n  of  the  Law,  i.  e.  the  study  of  wisdom  and  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Divine  Law,  was  greater  than  all,  as  it  is  written, 
"By  me  kings  reign"  (Prov.  viii.  15).  This  crown  Ezra  and 
his  colleagues  restored  to  its  pristine  condition,  i.  e.  rid  the 
ecclesiastical  Republic  of  the  pollutions  and  defilements  of 
Babylon,  and  restored  it  to  its  former  purity,  and  purged  Holy 
Scripture  of  the  fictitious  books  of  the  false  prophets,  and  of 
every  sort  of  corruption.   .  .  / 

p.  24  <2.  'But  in  order  that  the  Law  of  God  itself  and  the 
whole  Scripture  might  continue  among  the  people  in  their 
purity,  genuineness,  and  integrity,  in  order,  too,  that  a  distinction 
might  be  drawn  between  the  wTitings  of  numerous  false  prophets 
and  the  books  of  the  true  prophets,  and  in  order  that  any  cor- 


EXCURSUS  A.  259 

ruption  might  be  removed  which  could  appear  to  have  been  intro- 
duced into  the  sacred  text  through  the  stress  of  a  long  captivity, 
there  was  the  utmost  need  for  mature  deliberation,  for  the  anxious 
forethought  of  scholars  and  those  best  skilled  in  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  for  the  earnest  efforts  of  many  minds.  There 
were  present  as  Divinely  appointed  colleagues  in  the  task 
{divini  symmistae)  men  endowed  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy, 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  and  Nehemiah,  whose  ardour  and 
glowing  zeal  are  proclaimed  in  their  own  sacred  words ;  there 
was  present  Zerubbabel,  that  prince  of  utmost  energy,  whose 
family  and  renown  are  ennobled  by  the  genealogy  of  our  Saviour 
Christ ;  there  was  present  the  High  Priest  Jeschua,  and  other 
leading  priests  and  Levites  that  had  accompanied  Zerubbabel 
from  Babylon,  and  all  as  many  as  had  been  an  example  and  a 
support  of  true  religion  among  the  Jewish  people.  These  are 
reinforced  by  Ezra  with  certain  others  of  leading  rank,  mighty 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  excelling  in  influence,  in  number 
one  hundred  and  twenty,  who  were  called  "  The  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue,"  the  Great  Council,  in  order  that  they  should 
take  pious  and  weighty  counsel  respecting  the  chief  things  of 
their  religion,  not  so  much  having  regard  to  the  advantage  of 
the  moment  or  to  any  pressing  need,  but  also  so  far  as  possible 
with  the  view  of  providing  for  the  salvation  of  posterity  in  all 
future  time,  seeing  that  they  knew  the  gift  of  prophecy  would 
soon  be  taken  away  from  them/ 

p.  24  3,  cap.  xi.  *  On  convening  the  Synod,  Ezra  first 
gave  attention  to  Holy  Scripture  as  the  undoubted  Canon  of 
faith  and  true  religion,  and  defined  the  limits  of  the  Mosaic,  the 
Prophetical,  and  the  other  books  that  were  written  by  special 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  rejected  all  the  heterogeneous 
writings  that  had  crept  in  amongst  them.  .  .  .  The  canonical 
books  themselves  were  diligently  searched,  lest  they  should  re- 
tain any  foreign  or  mischievous  interpolation.  Nor  had  it  been 
enough  to  have  handed  down  to  the  Church  the  authentic  sacred 
books;  but  even  the  way  of  reading  the  same  clearly,  and  of 
S  2 


25o 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


ExcuRs.A.  expounding  them,  was  given  and  laid  down  with  the  utmost 
'  care/ 

p.  25  <^.  '  First  of  all,  they  determined  the  number  of  the 
canonical  books,  and  then  reduced  them  to  the  compass  of  a 
single  body  of  Scripture;  they  divided  it  into  three  princi- 
pal portions,  viz.,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  sacred 
writings/ 

pp.  26  b,  2*j  a.  '  The  sum  of  it  all  amounts  to  this,  that 
Ezra,  with  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  in  which  were  in- 
cluded the  last  of  the  Prophets,  determined  the  limits  of  the 
Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  within  certain  books,  and  distributed 
them  into  those  three  portions,  which  from  that  time  forward 
have  always  been  and  are  still  even  now  recognised  in  the 
Jewish  Church;  and  this  was  the  first  beginning  of  the  Massora 
in  connexion  with  Scripture/ 
Evidence:  The  following  is  the  evidence  upon  which  these  statements 
are  based,  arranged  in  order  of  date :  — 

1572.  Genebrardus  {Chronologia,  lib.  2)  is  quoted  by  Bux- 
torf  (p.  2  5  ^) :  '  The  prophets  were  succeeded  by  the  Great 
Synagogue,  whose  leaders  were  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Mordecai, 
Zerubbabel,  Jeshua.  These  presided  over  the  Council,  into 
which  one  hundred  and  twenty  persons  were  admitted,  some  of 
noble,  some  of  humble  origin,  to  provide  for  the  correction  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  setting  up  of  their  Canon  according 
to  the  rule  of  the  tradition.' 

1538.  Elias  Levita  (147 2-1 549).  Massoreth  Ha-Massoreth, 

{a)  '  The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  i.  e.  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  Malachi,  Daniel,  Mishael,  Azariah,  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Mordecai,  Zerubbabel,  with  whom  were  associated  other  sages 
from  the  craftsmen  and  artizans  to  the  number  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  persons'  (ed.  Ginsburg,  pp.  110,  in). 

(d)  '  What  shall  we  say  to  the  various  readings  (Keri  and 
Kethiv)  which  are  found  in  the  books  written  by  the  captives 
themselves,  such  as  Haggai,  Zechariah,  IMalachi,  Daniel,  Ezra, 
who  wrote  his  own  book  and  the  Chronicles,  and  Mordecai, 


Genebrar- 
dus. 


Levita. 


EXCURSUS  A.  26X 

who  wrote  the  Book  of  Esther?     Were  not  these  themselves  Excurs.a. 
among  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue?  .  .  /  (id.  p.  107). 

(c)  '  The  whole  period  of  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
did  not  exceed  about  forty  years,  as  is  shown  in  Seder  Olam 
and  in  Ibn  Daud's  Seder  Ha-Kabbalah'  (id.  p.  ro8)^ 

(d)  '•  But  when  they  failed  to  find  the  autograph  copy  itself, 
which  seems  most  likely  to  have  happened,  they  undoubtedly 
followed  the  majority  of  the  MSB.,  which  they  had  collected 
from  different  places,  one  here  and  one  there,  as  the  twenty-four 
books  were  then  not  joined  together  into  one  volume.  Now 
they  (i.e.  Ezra  and  his  associates)  have  joined  them  together 
and  divided  them  into  three  parts,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Hagiographa,  and  arranged  the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa 
not  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  been  put  by  our  Rabbins  of 
blessed  memory  in  Baha  bathra  (14  a)'  (id.  p.  120). 

1502.  The  book  quoted  as  Juchasin,  fol.  13,  by  Buxtorf  in  ^*^.  ^^« 
the  Tiberias  (cap.  x.  p.  2  2  b)  is  the  Sepher  Juchasin  or  Book  of  \uto. 
Generations,  a  chronological  treatise  by  Abraham  ben  Samuel 
Zacuto,  whio  lived  in  Spain  about  1490.  The  passage  quoted  is, 
*Now  Ezra's  house  of  judgment  is  that  which  is  called  the 
Great  Synagogue  or  the  Great  Council,  which  restored  the 
crown  to  its  former  condition.' 

Don  Isaac  Abarbanel,  the  introduction^  to  whose  book  en-  AbarbaneL 
titled  The  Inheritance  of  the  Fathers  [Nachalath  Avothy  is 
quoted  by  Buxtorf  (cap.  x.  p.  23  a),  lived  1 436-1 509.  The 
passage  quoted  is  the  following  :  '  The  list  of  the  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  is  Haggai,  the  prophet ;  Zechariah,  the  pro- 
phet ;  Malachi,  the  prophet ;  Zechariah,  the  prophet ;  Zerub- 
babel,  the   son   of  Shealtiel ;  Mordecai,  the  son  of  Bilschan ; 

^  N.B.  The  last  quotation  is  not  accurate ;  see  Ginsburg's  note  in  loc. 

2  Morinus  quotes  from  the  same  introduction  an  illustration  of  Jewish 
ignorance  or  carelessness  about  chronology,  *  Of  the  same  generation  as 
Simon  the  Just  was  Dosa,  the  son  of  Harcines.  For  he  was  of  the  number 
of  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  and  prolonged  his  life  until  he  saw 
Rabbi  Akiba '  {Biblic.  Exercitt.  II.  v.  cap.  iii.). 


262  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  A.  Ezra,  the  priest  and  scribe ;  Jeshua,  the  son  of  Jehozedek  the 
priest ;  Seraiah ;  Realiah ;  Mispar  Bigvaeus  (Bigvai)  ;  Rachum  ; 
Baana ;  Nehemiah,  the  son  of  ChachiHah.  These  are  the  twelve 
chiefs  expressly  named  who  went  up  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem 
at  the  beginning  of  the  (age  of  the)  second  temple.  With  them 
were  likewise  joined  others  from  the  more  leading  men  of  the 
people  of  Israel,  until  the  number  of  one  hundred  and  twenty 
Avas  completed,  and  they  were  called  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,  and  they  w^ere  so  styled,  because  they  were  called 
together  to  establish  good  laws  for  the  right  government  of  the 
people  and  to  repair  the  breaches  of  the  Law/ 
'Epiwdi:  1362-1412.     The  passage  from  Ephodi,  the  literary  title  of 

Profiat  Duran  or  Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Moses  ha-Levi  (1360-1412), 
quoted  by  Biixtorf  (cap.  xi.  p.  2^0)  and  Morinus  (lib.  ii.  Exercit. 
XXV.  cap.  iv.),  bears  less  directly  upon  the  subject  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  :  *  The  perfect  one,  the  chief  of  the  scribes,  Ezra, 
the  priest  and  scribe,  shook  out  his  lap,  and  exerted  all  the 
strength  of  his  might  to  restore  what  had  been  perverted ;  like- 
wise did  all  the  scribes  who  followed  him,  and  corrected  these 
books  with  all  the  care  they  could,  until  they  left  them  most 
perfect,  by  numbering  the  sections,  verses,  words,  and  letters 
....  and  composed  out  of  them  books,  which  are  the  books  of 
the  Massorah.' 

c.    1250.    [Tanchuma    ben   Josef,    according    to   Herzfeld, 
reckoned  the  Nethinim  of  Ezra  ii.  53  with  the  Great  Synagogue 
(Tanchuma  19,  referred  to,  Gesch.  d.  Volk  Isr.  p.  382,  1863).] 
Ktmchi.  f  1235.  The  great  Jewish  commentator,  Rabbi  David  Kimchi, 

who  died  in  1235  a.d.,  refers,  though  in  very  general  terms,  to 
the  work  of  the  Great  Synagogue  : 

{a)  '  It  appears  that  at  the  first  captivity  the  Scriptures  were 
lost  and  scattered ;  and  the  wise  men  that  knew  the  Law  had 
died.  Then  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  who  "  restored 
the  Law  to  its  former  condition,"  found  the  doubtful  passages 
in  the  Scriptures  and  followed  the  majority  (of  the  MSS.)  ac- 
cording to  their  knowledge'  {Praefat.  in  Jos.).     This  passage 


EXCURSUS   A.  263 

Kimchi  repeats  in  his  comment  on  a  various  reading  in  2  Sam.  excurs.  a. 
XV.  21. 

(d)  '  And  Ezra  united  the  book  (Chronicles)  with  the  Sacred 
Writings  by  the  hands  of  (at  the  direction  of,  ''1^  bv)  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  the  last  of  the  Prophets,  and  they  joined 
it  with  the  Kethubim  and  not  with  the  Nebiim,  because  it  was  a 
Chronicle  '  {Praefat.  in  Chron.). 

1 135-1204.  The  great  Jewish  philosopher  of  the  Middle  ii/a/««^- 
Ages,  Moses  ben  Maimon  (Maimonides),  writes  :  '  Ezra's  House 
of  Judgment  (or  Council)  consisted  of  those  who  are  called  the 
Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue ;  and  they  are  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
Malachi,  &c.,  and  many  wise  ones  with  them,  up  to  the  number 
of  one  hundred  and  twenty.  The  last  of  them  was  Simon  the 
Just  ;  he  belonged  to  the  number  of  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty.'  (Praefat.  in  Tad  Hachazakah,  quoted  by  Buxtorf,  cap. 
X.  p.  23  b) 

c.  1 160.  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  David  of  Toledo  says :  '  Joshua  Abr.  ben 
handed  it  (the  Law)  on  to  the  elders,  who  lived  after  him ;  the  ^""^  ' 
elders  handed  it  on  to  the  prophets ;  the  prophets  handed  it  on, 
from  the  one  to  the  other,  through  successive  generations,  down 
to  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi ;  the  prophets  handed  it  on 
to  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  who  were  Zerubbabel  the 
son  of  Shealtiel,  the  son  of  Jechoniah,  the  king  of  the  Jews,  and 
those  who  came  with  Zerubbabel,  Jeshua,  Nehemiah,  Seraiah, 
Realiah,  Mordecai,  Ritschan,  Mistpar,  Bigvai,  Rechum,  Baana, 
who  were  the  heads  of  the  Great  Council.'  {Sepher  ha-Kabbala 
or  Book  of  Tradition,  fol.  23,  col.  4,  quoted  by  Buxtorf,  cap.  x. 
p.  23  «.) 

t  1 105.  Rashi,  or  Rabbi  Solomon  Isaac,  the  celebrated  com-  Rasht\or 
mentator,  composed  a  Commentary  upon  most  of  the  Talmudic  -Z^'''^''"- 
Tractates.  Commenting  upon  Baba  baihra,  fol.  15,  he  says: 
'  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and 
Malachi,  and  Zerubbabel,  and  Mordecai,  and  their  colleagues, 
wrote  Ezekiel  which  was  prophesied  during  the  Captivity :  and 
I  know  not  why  Ezekiel  did  not  write  it  himself,  unless  it  was 


264 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


' 


Tar  gum  to 
'  Song  of 
Songs.' 


that  prophecy  was  not  permitted  to  be  written  outside  the  (holy) 
land  ;  and  they  wrote  it,  after  they  returned  to  the  (holy)  land. 
So  too,  with  the  book  of  Daniel,  who  was  in  the  Captivity ;  and 
so  too,  with  the  Roll  of  Esther  ;  and  so  with  the  Twelve  (Minor 
Prophets).  Because  their  prophecies  were  short,  the  prophets 
did  not  write  them  themselves,  each  one  his  own  book.  But 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  on  their  return,  saw  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  would  be  taken  away,  and  that  they  were  the  last 
prophets.  And  they  arose,  and  wrote  their  prophecies,  and 
combined  with  them  the  little  (or,  short)  prophecies,  and  made 
them  into  a  great  book,  so  that  they  should  not  be  lost.' 

Commenting  on  Megilla,  fol.  2,  he  says :  'The  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  are  those  who,  in  the  days  of  Mordecai  and 
Esther,  instituted  the  joy  of  Purim,  and  the  reading  of  the  Roll 
of  Esther.' 

1092-1167.  Abraham  Aben-Ezra,  the  commentator,  says: 
'  A  few  years  after  the  building  of  the  second  Holy  Temple,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord,  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding, 
rested  upon  the  Men  of  the  House,  which  are  called  the  Men  of 
the  Great  Synagogue,  that  they  might  interpret  all  that  was 
sealed,  by  precepts  and  words  transmitted,  according  to  the 
mind  of  the  just  ones,  from  the  mouth  of  the  earlier  and  latter 
prophets.'  {Sepher  Moznaim,  a  Hebrew  Grammar,  quoted  by 
Morinus,  lib.  ii.  Exercit.  xii.  7.) 

9th  cent.  (?)  The  Targum  of  '  Song  of  Songs '  speaks  of 
'  Ezra,  the  priest,  and  Zerubbabel,  and  Jeshua,  and  Nehemiah, 
and  Mordecai,  and  Belsan,  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue, 
who  are  likened  unto  roses,  that  they  may  have  strength  to 
labour  in  the  Law  by  day  and  night.'     (Chap.  vii.  i,  2.) 

The  oldest  Jewish  tradition  is  comprised  in  the  following 
extracts,  the  exact  antiquity  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  com- 
pute. The  earliest  reference  is  that  which  is  contained  in  the 
Pirqe  Aboih,  a  Mishnic  treatise  committed  to  writing  about 
200  A.D. 


EXCURSUS   A.  265 

Talmud.  excurs.  a. 

Tal.  Jer.   Berakoth,  ii.  4  (cf.   33  «.  Megillah,  fol.  17  b).     R.  Talmud. 
Jeremiah  says:  'The  120  members  of  the  Great  Synagogue, 
including  more  than  80  prophets,  have  arranged  this  prayer  (i.e. 
the  18  blessings),  and  put  it  in  order.' 

(The  number  of  '  the  elders '  is  stated  to  be  85  m  Jer.  Meg.  i. 
7,  and  Midrash  Ruth) 

Tal.  Jer.  Berakoth^  vii.  4  (cf.  Megillah^  iii.  8).  'And  when 
the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  arose,  they  restored  "  the 
greatness  "  to  its  pristine  state.' 

Of  this  tradition  another  form  appears  in  Yoma,  fol.  69  b, 
Sanhedrm,  fol.  64.  '  Why  were  they  called  the  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue .?  because  they  restored  "  the  Crown "  to  its 
pristine  state.' 

Tal  Jer.  Berakoth,  vii.  4.  '  When  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  arose  .  .  .'  the  formula  was  used  again  '  God  the 
great,  the  strong,  the  terrible.' 

Pesachtm,  cap.  4,  fol.  50,  2,  as  quoted  by  Buxtorf,  ap.  Tib. 
p.  23  a.  'On  four  and  twenty  fast-days  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  sate  (.?)  on  account  of  the  scribes  that  wrote  the 
Scriptures,  Tephillim  and  Mezuzoth^,  lest  they  should  grow  rich  ; 
for  if  they  were  to  grow  rich  they  would  not  write.' 

Megillah,  iii.  7.     (See  below  Pirqe  Aboth.) 

Baba  bathra,  fol.  15,  i.  'The  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
wrote  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve  (Minor  Prophets),  Daniel  and 
the  Roll  of  Esther  2/  As  quoted  m.  Mishpete-ha-Teamim  (in  the 
MS.  Moses  b.  Asher,  895  a.  d.,  ed.  Baer-Strack),  the  first 
sentence  runs  '  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  and  among 
them  Haggai  and  Zechariah,'  &c. 

Pirqe  Aboth,  c.  i  (quoted  also  in  Aboth  d Rabbi  Nathan  and 

^  i,  e.  Phylacteries  and  Texts  to  be  attached  to  doorposts,  &c. 

2  According  to  Maccoth,  23,  and  Jer.  Meg.  \.  (quoted  in  Hamburger, 
Real  Lex.  Talmud,  sub  voce  Gr.  Syn^,  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
established  the  authority  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  and  caused  the  Days  of 
Purim  to  be  observed ;  cf.  Rashi,  a 


l66  THE   CANON    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  A.  Meg.  iii.  7) :  'Moses  received  the  Torah  from  Sinai  and  delivered 
it  to  Joshua,  and  Joshua  to  the  elders,  and  the  elders  to  the 
prophets,  and  the  prophets  to  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 
They  said  three  things:  Be  deliberate  in  judgment,  and  raise 
up  many  disciples,  and  make  a  fence  to  the  Torah.  Simon  the 
Just  was  of  the  remnants  of  the  Great  Synagogue/  The  'Pairs' 
of  Jewish  Scribes  preceding  the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai 
are  then  enumerated. 

The  Tractate,  Ahoth  (T  Rabbi  Nathan,  'Sayings  of  the  Rabbi 
Nathan,'  commenting  on  the  first  of  these  precepts,  'At  first  they 
said,  Proverbs  and  the  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes  were 
not  for  public  reading  (i.e.  Genuzim),  because  they  spake  para- 
bles. And  they  remained.  And  they  removed  them  from  public 
reading  until  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  came  and  ex- 
pounded them.'     (P.  2,  ed.  Schecbter,  Vienna,  1887.) 

The  passage  from  Pirqe  Aboth  should  be  carefully  compared 
with  a  similar  statement  in  Peak.  ii.  6,  *  Nahum,  the  scribe,  said 
it  was  received  from  Rabbi  Maesa  (Meir),  who  received  it  from 
Rab  (i.e.  Rabbi  Jehudah),  who  received  it  from  "the  Pairs," 
who  received  it  from  the  Prophets.'  The  absence  of  any  refer- 
ence to  the  Great  Synagogue  between  '  The  Pairs  of  Scribes ' 
and  '  the  Prophets  '  is  very  noteworthy. 

We  have  thus  recorded  the  principal  evidence  to  be  adduced 
in  support  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  There  is  no  mention 
of  any  such  body  conveyed  in  the  use  of  the  word  awayoiyr] 
in  I  Mace.  vii.  12,  xiv.  28.  In  the  former  passage,  where 
it  is  stated  that  a  company  of  scribes  {avvayioyr^  ypa^inareoip)  re- 
sorted to  Alcimus  and  Bacchides,  it  is  obvious  that  no  formal 
community  is  intended.  In  the  latter  passage,  the  words  '  at  a 
great  congregation  (or  gathering)  of  priests  and  of  the  people 
and  rulers  of  the  nation  and  the  elders  of  the  country '  could 
not  admit  of  such  a  reference.  The  neyaXrj  a-uvaycoyrj  seems  to 
denote  the  gathering  of  a  representative  meeting,  not  the  title  of 
a  recognised  official  body.  Had  the  latter  been  intended,  the 
article  would  have  been  prefixed. 


EXCURSUS  A.  267 

There  is  no  mention  of  '  the  Great  Synagogue  '  in  the  writings  excurs.  a. 
of  either  Josephus  or  Philo.     There  is  no  allusion  to  it  in  the  x7o historical 
Apocrypha.     There   is   not   a   sentence   in    Nehemiah   which,  ^'^idence. 
according  to  any  literal  interpretation,  would  lead  a  reader  to 
suppose  that  Ezra  founded  an  important  deliberative  assembly, 
or  even  a  religious  Synod  or  College. 

The  earliest  evidence  therefore  is  that  supplied  in  the  Mish- 
nic  Treatise.  Pirqe  Aboth,  which  may  have  been  committed  to 
writing  in  the  2nd  or  3rd  century  a.d.  The  remainder  of  the 
Talmudic  evidence  is  Gemara,  and  not  Mishnah,  and  therefore, 
probably,  was  not  committed  to  writing  earlier  than  the  6th  or 
7  th  century,  a.d.  There  is  no  evidence  from  any  literary 
source  whatever,  nearer  to  the  historical  period,  to  which  the 
Great  Synagogue  is  assigned,  than  Pirqe  Aboth  \  and  all  the 
testimony  o{  Pirqe  Aboth  amounts  to  is  this,  that,  in  the  chain 
of  tradition  from  Moses  to  the  Scribes  of  the  2nd  century  B.C., 
the  Great  Synagogue  intervened  between  the  Prophets  and  '  the 
Pairs'  of  Scribes,  and  that  Simon  the  Just  ranked  as  its  last 
surviving  member. 

The  argument  from  the  silence  of  the  Old  Testament,  of  the 
Apocrypha,  of  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus,  of  Philo,  is  significant 
enough  by  itself.  But  when  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  late- 
ness and  meagreness  of  the  earliest  testimony  in  favour  of  the 
tradition,  it  is  seen  to  be  almost  fatal  to  the  historicity  of  the 
story. 

Let  us  then  briefly  sum  up  the  results  of  the  earliest  Hebrew  Sum?nary 
testimony  upon  the  subject  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  %idencT 

1.  It  belonged  to  the  era  of  Ezra  and  included  in  its  members 
Simon  the  Just.  (This,  according  to  traditional  chronology, 
was  well  within  the  bounds  of  possibility.  Simon  the  Just  was 
believed  to  have  been  High  Priest  in  the  days  of  Alexander 
the  Great ;  and  Alexander  the  Great  was  supposed  to  have 
reigned  in  the  generation  after  the  Return  from  the  Exile.) 

2.  It  consisted  of  85  or  120  members,  and  therefore  differed 
from  the  later  Jewish  Sanhedrin,  which  consisted  of  70. 


2,68  THE   CANON   OF   THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  A.  It  contained  in  its  ranks  many  prophets.  It  seems  to  have 
been  an  assembly  convened  for  special  purposes  at  a  particular 
epoch,  immediately  before  the  disappearance  of  the  gift  of 
prophecy. 

3.  It  was  credited  with  having  discharged  important  duties 
in  connexion  with  the  religious  life  of  the  people  :  (a)  it  restored 
the  ascendency  of  the  law ;  {d)  it  wrote  certain  books  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  {c)  it  drew  up  certain  prayers ;  (d)  it  allayed 
the  doubts  that  had  been  felt  about  the  books  Ecclesiastes  and 
Song  of  Songs ;  (e)  it  instituted  the  observance  of  the  days  of 
Purim. 

4.  It  was  regarded,  especially,  as  the  sacred  body  which 
received  the  holy  tradition  of  the  '  Law  '  from  the  Prophets,  and 
handed  it  on  to  the  Scribes  of  the  2nd  century  b.  c. 

No  resem-  It  may  be  said  at  once  that  this  picture  does  not  correspond 
j^ish  with  any  Jewish  Assembly  or  Council  recorded  in  the  Persian, 
Councils  in   Greek,  or  Roman  period  of  Jewish  history. 

hisloi'y.  ^  ^  ■^  •' 

After  the  time  of  Ezra,  the  chief  power  in  the  Jewish  com- 
munity fell  into  the  hands  of  the  High  Priest,  under  whom  was 
a  purely  political  body  of  aristocratic  '  elders '  or  Gerousia. 
The  assumption  of  the  High  Priesthood  by  the  Asmonean 
family  made  the  Government  still  more  autocratic.  The  tide 
of  King  was  taken  by  the  last  Asmonean  princes.  The  Gerousia 
continued  to  exist  (cf.  i  Mace.  xii.  6,  xiv.  20,  Jos.  Ant.  Jud.  xiii. 
6,  5) ;  and  when  the  Jewish  Monarchy  was  abolished  by  the 
Romans,  it  was  this  body  which,  under  the  successive  constitu- 
tions laid  down  by  Pompey,  Gabinius,  and  Caesar,  became  the 
principal  domestic  power  in  Judea. 

The  name  of  Sanhedrin  (o-ui/eSptoi/)  is  first  certainly  used  of 
this  reconstituted  assembly  in  a  passage  of  Josephus  describing 
an  early  adventure  of  Herod  the  Great  {Ant.  xiv.  9,  3-5),  cf.  Ps. 
Sol.  iv.  I. 

There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  Gerousia,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  High  Priest,  in  the  interval  between  Nehemiah 
and  the  Roman  supremacy,  was  ever  designated   'the    Great 


EXCURSUS  A.  269 

Synagogue/  or  ever  possessed  the  administrative  supremacy  in  Excurs.a. 
religious  matters  assigned  to  it  by  very  late  Jewish  tradition. 
None  of  the  historical  authorities  for  that  period  support  such  an 
idea ;  certainly  they  do  not  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  formation 
of  the  Canon  was  due  to  such  a  body. 

We  know  that  mediaeval  Jews  (e.g.  Tanchuma  39 «)  could  fewis/i ^ra- 
place  the  scribes,  Shemaiah  and  Abtalion,  at  the  head  of  the  of^en  un- 
Great  Synagogue  ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Jewish  tradi-  ^^^^oncai. 
tion  which  the  Talmud  represents  fancied  that  the  Sanhedrin 
was  a  Council  of  Scribes,  and  that,  from  the  days  of  the  Macca- 
bees, it  was  presided  over  by  the  most  eminent  Scribe,  the  Presi- 
dent being  called  the  Nasi,  the  Vice-President  the  Abbeth-din. 

The  slightest  acquaintance  with  Jewish  history  will  show 
the  unhistorical  character  of  such  a  view.  The  origin  of  this 
transformation  of  a  political  assembly  into  a  gathering  of  Scribes 
was  due  to  the  attempt  to  read  into  earlier  times  the  Synagogue 
system  which  prevailed  in  the  Talmudic  period,  and  which,  to 
the  Rabbinic  imagination,  must  have  prevailed  in  earlier  days  (cf. 
We\\h2i\i?,tn,  Pharisaeru.Sadducaer^^Y>'  26-43;  Schiirer,  G^jc^. 
Jud.  Volk,\d\.  ii.  25). 

Have  we  not  good  reason  to  suspect  that  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue is  a  similarly  unauthenticated  Rabbinic  fiction  ?  If  the 
Great  Synagogue  were  a  gathering  of  Prophets  and  Scribes,  it 
was  neither  the  administrative  Council  of  the  nation,  nor  the 
Sanhedrin  in  its  earlier  form.     What  then  could  it  have  been  ? 

To  this  the  reply  is  made,  either  that  it  was  a  religious  College  Modem  ex- 
instituted  to  establish  the  lines  of  Jewish  worship  in  the  time  of  ^"^^jj^f '^''^^^* 
Ezra  and  lasting  for  a  single  generation,  or  that  it  denotes  a  « succession 

-  ...  ,  of  teachers. 

succession  01  great  religious  teachers. 

Fatal  to  the  first  alternative  are  the  two  objections,  {a)  that 
Simon  the  Just  is  emphatically  pronounced  to  have  been  a 
member  of  the  same  college  as  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  (^)  that 
no  mention  of  this  institution  is  recorded  by  any  trustworthy 
authority,  and  that  the  first  mention  of  it  occurs  in  a  tradition 
committed  to  writing  six  centuries  after  Ezra's  days. 


270  THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

Fatal  to  the  second  alternative  is  the  objection,  that  the 
Talmudic  testimony  clearly  contemplates  a  corporate  body 
acting  collectively.  According  to  Talmudic  chronology,  there 
was  nothing  improbable  in  this ;  for  as  the  interval  between 
Ezra  and  Alexander  the  Great  could  be  regarded  as  only 
thirty- four  years  {Aboda  zara,  9  a,  Seder  Olam,  p.  41),  it  was 
perfectly  possible  for  Ezra  and  Simon  the  Just  to  be  members 
of  one  assembly.  But,  for  our  purposes,  such  a  chronological 
confusion  heightens  suspicion,  if  it  does  not  absolutely  destroy 
confidence. 

On  the  one  hand,  if  the  Great  Synagogue  be  regarded  as  a 
definitely  appointed  religious  assembly,  we  are,  of  course,  obliged 
to  assume  that,  Haggai,  Ezra  and  Simon  the  Just  being  mem- 
bers of  it,  its  functions  must  have  been  continued  for  at  least 
two  centuries.  But  this  is  a  departure  from  the  actual  tradition, 
which  makes  it  all  the  more  inexplicable,  that  no  reference 
to  such  an  institution  should  appear  in  Josephus,  or  in  Philo,  or 
in  the  Apocrypha. 

If  the  Great  Synagogue  be  a  name  for  a  succession  of  eminent 
Jewish  Scribes,  the  Jewish  tradition  is  no  longer  treated  seriously 
as  evidence ;  its  whole  character  is  altered  and  modified  in 
such  a  way  as  to  become  plausible.  But  are  we  jusdfied  in  thus 
handling  the  meagre,  late,  and  doubtful  testimony?  Can  we 
accept  it,  and  reserve  to  ourselves  the  right  of  altering  it  until  we 
have  reduced  it  to  proportions  of  historical  probability  .? 
Origin  0/  -  I  believe  that  the  evidence  is  quite  insufficient  to  justify  us 
in  regarding  '  the  Great  Synagogue  '  as  an  institution  which  ever 
played  a  real  part  in  the  History  of  the  Jews.  But  the  evidence, 
defective  as  it  is,  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  rise  of  such  a 
legend. 

The  period  between  Ezra  and  the  Maccabean  war  was 
hidden  in  an  obscurity,  upon  which  the  Jewish  Annals  completely 
failed  to  throw  any  satisfactory  light.  Josephus  contributes 
practically  nothing ;  and,  as  the  example  above  mentioned 
shows,  the  greatest   ignorance,  as  to  the   chronology  of  that 


ihe  Legend. 


EXCURSUS  A.  2^1 

period,  prevailed  in  the  Talmudic  age  and  among  the  Jews  of  the  Excurs.  a. 
Middle  Ages. 

The  Jewish  Doctors,  however,  sought  to  fill  the  gap.  They 
felt  compelled  to  account  for  the  transmission  of  the  true 
tradition  of  the  Torah,  after  the  spirit  of  prophecy  had  failed, 
and  before  the  great  Rabbinic  schools  arose.  Into  the  gap 
between  the  prophets  and  Antigonus  \  they  inserted  the  fiction  of 
*  the  Great  Synagogue.'  The  Synagogue  system  was  that  which 
to  them  embodied  the  hope  and  strength  of  religious  Judaism. 
The  Synagogue  system  was  supposed  to  have  arisen  in  the 
period  of  Ezra.  What  was  more  likely,  then,  than  that  it  had 
been  based  on  the  model  of  a  Great  National  Assembly.? 
Such  an  assembly  would  have  given  the  pattern  of  which  all 
Jewish  Synagogues  were  smaller  copies.  Such  an  assembly 
determined  finally  the  ascendency  of  the  '  Torah,'  restored  '  the 
Greatness '  of  it  to  Israel,  supervised  the  composition  of  certain 
of  the  Sacred  Books,  and  drew  up  liturgical  devotions  and 
prayers  to  accompany  the  reading  of  the  '  Torah.'  Such  an 
assembly  would  have  been  '  the  Great  Synagogue.' 

It  was,  we  believe,  a  dream  of  the  Jewish  Doctors.  But  it 
was  not  destitute  of  a  specious  plausibility.  There  was  no  real 
evidence  to  support  it ;  but  then,  owing  to  the  dearth  of  historical 
materials,  there  was  no  obvious  evidence  against  it.  That  the 
idea  may  have  arisen  from  an  Haggadic  expansion  of  Neh. 
viii-x,  and  that  the  number  of  the  120  members  may  have  been  iv^-^.  viii-x. 
based  on  the  combination  of  the  lists  of  names  contained  in  that 
passage,  is  not  altogether  improbable.  In  Neh.  x.  1-28,  as 
Krochmal  pointed  out  {Kerem-chemed,  5,  68),  we  have  the  names 
of  84  or  85  (see  ver.  10)  Signatories  :  in  Neh.  viii.  4-7,  the 
names  of  26  who  stood  by  Ezra  at  the  promulgation  of  the 
Torah  :  in  Neh.  ix.  5,  6,  the  names  of  8  Levites  who  sang  and 
uttered  prayer  on  the  occasion  (see  Kuenen,  Over  de  mannen  des 
Groote  Synagoge,  1876). 

But,  while  the  correctness  of  this  last  ingenious  conjecture 
^  Antigonus  of  Soko  (Pirqe  Aboth,  i.  2). 


27^     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  A.  must  be  left  undetermined,  we  may  safely  infer  from  the  legend, 
that  it  affords  one  further  illustration  of  the  deep  impression 
which  the  action  of  Ezra  and  his  colleagues,  in  the  public 
promulgation  of  the  Torah,  produced  upon  the  mind  of  succeed- 
ing generations. 

In  conclusion,  the  reader  will  be  careful  to  observe  that  no 
early  Jewish  testimony  associated  with  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  the  work  of  completing  the  Hebrew  Canon  of 
Scripture.  This  was  a  late  expansion  of  the  legend,  and  one  of 
which  no  trace  is  found  in  the  earlier  forms  of  the  tradition. 

[Cf.  also  article  on  'Great  Synagogue'  in  Herzog-Plitt,  R,  E^ 
and  the  references  to  it  in  Robertson  Smith's  Old  Test,  in 
Jewish  Ch.  (1881),  Taylor's  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers 
(1877),  Streane's  Chagigah  (Introd.  p.  vii.  1891),  Driver, 
Inti'od.  to  Lit.  of  O.  T.  (Introd.  p.  xxxv),  1891.] 


EXCURSUS    B. 

BaBA    BaTHRA,    FOL.    14^   AND    15^ 

The  Baraitha,  or  unauthorized  Gloss,  dealing  with  the  Hebrew  Excurs.  B. 
Scriptures  in  this  portion  of  the  Talmudic  Tractate,  Baha 
Bathra,  has  often  been  considered  to  have  an  important  bearing 
upon  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  For  this  belief  a 
glance  at  its  contents  will  show  that  very  little  can  be  said. 
The  passage  contains  strange  and  often  impossible  traditions 
respecting  the  composition  of  certain  books  of  Scripture.  But 
on  the  formation  of  the  Canon  it  tells  us  nothing.  It  is  how- 
ever full  of  interest ;  and  as  a  curious  specimen  of  the  uncritical 
character  of  Rabbinic  speculation  in  Scriptural  questions  deserves 
attention. 

We  subjoin  a  translation  from  the  critical  text  supplied  by 
G.  A.  Marx  in  his  Traditio  Rahbinorum  Veterrima  (Leipzig, 
1884): 

'  Our  Rabbins  teach,  that  the  order  of  the  Nebiim  is  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  the  Twelve 
(Minor  Prophets). 

'  But,  was  not  Hosea  first  (i.  e.  chronologically)  ?  As  it  is 
written  (Hos.  i.  2)  ''  When  the  Lord  spake  at  the  first  by 
Hosea."  Well,  how  then  spake  He  with  {or  by)  Hosea  '*at 
the  first } "  For  from  Moses  to  Hosea,  were  there  not  many 
prophets.?  Rabbi  Jochanan  said.  At  the  first,  that  is,  first  in 
respect  of  the  four  prophets  who  prophesied  at  the  same  time  ; 
and  they  were  Hosea  and  Isaiah,  Amos  and  Micah.  Let, 
then,  Hosea  be  placed  at  the  head.  Seeing  that  his  prophecy 
was  written  along  with  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  and 
T 


274     THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  B.  that  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi  were  the  last  of  the  Nebiim, 
it  must  be  reckoned  with  them.  And  yet  they  wrote  it  separately, 
and  placed  it  in  front !  Because  it  is  so  small,  it  might  easily 
slip  out  of  sight. 

'  But  was  not  Isaiah  before  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  ?  then  Isaiah 
should  be  placed  at  the  head !  The  reason  (i.  e.  for  the  Tal- 
mudic  order)  is  that  Kings  ends  with  desolation,  and  Jeremiah 
is  all  of  it  desolation,  while  Ezekiel  opens  with  desolation,  and 
ends  with  consolation,,  and  Isaiah  is  all  of  it  consolation ; 
accordingly  we  join  desolation  to  desolation  and  consolation  to 
consolation. 

'  The  order  of  the  Kethubim  is  Ruth,  the  Book  of  Psalms,  Job 
and  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs  and  Lamentations, 
Daniel  and  the  Roll  of  Esther,  Ezra  and  Chronicles. 

'  Now  if  it  be  said,  Job  lived  in  the  days  of  Moses ;  Job  there- 
fore should  be  placed  at  the  head :  the  answer  is  verily,  we  do 
not  begin  with  calamity.  And  yet,  is  not  Ruth  calamity?  It 
is  calamity  with  a  good  end  to  it :  as  said  Rabbi  Jochanan, 
*'  Why  was  her  name  called  Ruth .? "  because  from  her  there 
went  forth  David,  who  satiated  {rivvdtho)  the  Almighty  with 
songs  and  hymns. 

'  And  who  wrote  them  (i.  e.  the  books  of  Scripture)  ?  Moses 
wrote  his  own  book,  and  the  section  about  Balaam  and  Job. 
Deut.Tiiadv.  Joshua  wrotc  his  own  book,  and  eight  verses  in  the  Torah. 
Samuel  wrote  his  own  book,  and  the  Book  of  Judges  and  Ruth. 
David  wrote  the  Book  of  Psalms  at  the  direction  of  {or  for)  the 
ten  elders,  the  first  man,  Melchizedek,  and  Abraham,  and  Moses, 
and  Heman,  and  Jeduthun,  and  Asaph,  and  the  three  sons  of 
Korah.  Jeremiah  wrote  his  own  book,  and  the  Book  of  Kings 
and  Lamentations.  Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote  Isaiah, 
Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes.  The  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve  (Minor 
Prophets),  Daniel,  and  the  Roll  of  Esther.  Ezra  wrote  his  own 
book  and  the  genealogies  in  Chronicles  down  to  his  own  time. 

'  With  this  agrees  the  saying  of  the  Rabbi  (Abba  Aricha,  third 


EXCURSUS  B.  275 

cent.),  whom  Rabbi  Jehudah^  reports  to  have  said,  Ezra  went  not  Excurs.  b. 
up  from  Babylon  until  he  had  written  his  genealogy  :    and  then 
he   went   up.     Who   completed    it .?     Nehemiah,   the    son    of 
Hachaliah. 

'  Whereas  it  says,  Joshua   wrote   his  own   book   and  eight 
verses  in  Torah,  its  teaching  agrees  with  those  who  affirm.  Eight 
verses  which  are  in  Torah,  Joshua  wrote :  for  the  reading  is, 
"  And   Moses   the   servant   of   the   Lord   died    there "  :   is   it  Deui.  xxxiv. 
possible  that  Moses  should  have  in  his  lifetime  written  the  words  ^' 
"  And  he  died  there  ? "  Was  it  not  that  Moses  wrote  so  far, 
and  from  that  point  and  onward  Joshua  wrote .?     The  words  of 
Rabbi  Jehuda^,  or,  as  others  say,  of  Rabbi  Nehemiah,  when  Rabbi 
Simeon  said  to  him,  "  Was  it  possible  that  the  book  of  Torah 
lacked  a  single  letter,  when  it  was  written,  Take  this  book  of  the 
Taw  ?  "     Verily,  up  to  this  point  the  Almighty  dictated  and  Moses  Deui.  xxxiv. 
wrote  ;  but  from  that  point  and  onward  the  Almighty  dictated,  ^' 
and  Moses  wrote  with  tears.     Just  as  we  read  in  the  passage, 
"  And  Baruch  said  unto  them,"  "  He  pronounced  with  his  mouth  /er.  xxxvi. 
&c."     With   whom   does   that   agree  ?     Even  with  the   Rabbi  ^ 
whom  Rabbi  Jehoshua,  the  son  of  Abba,  reports,  on  the  authority 
of  Rabbi  Giddel,  to  have  said  "  Eight  verses  in  Torah  one  pro- 
nounced alone."     Is  this  as  much  as  to  say,  that  it  is  not  as 
Rabbi  Simeon  said  ?  well,  even  if  you  say.  Rabbi  Simeon,  still 
since  it  was  once  altered,  it  was  altered  for  ever. 

'  Joshua  wrote  his  own  book  :  but  as  for  that  which  is  written 
"  And  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died," /(?j.  xxiv.  29. 
Eleazar  added  it  at  the  end.     And  whereas  it  is  written,  "  And     '  ^^' 
Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron,  died,"  Phinehas  and  the  elders  added 
that. 

'  Whereas  it  is  said  Samuel  wrote  his  own  book,  and  it  is 
written,  "And  Samuel  died,"  Gad,  the  seer,  and  Nathan,  the  ^'Sam. 
prophet,  added  that. 

'  Whereas  it  is  said,  "  David  wrote  the  Book  of  the  Psalms  at 

^  This  was  probably  R.  Jehuda,  ben  Ezekiel,  of  the  3rd  cent.  a.d. 
^  R.  Jehuda,  the  compiler  of  the  Mishnah. 
T  2 


276 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Ps. 

Ixxxviii.  I. 
Isat.  xli.  2. 
Gen.  xxxii. 
31. 


Ps. 

Ixxxviii.  I. 
Nttin. 
xii.  7. 


Job  xix.  23. 

Ex.  xxxiii. 
16. 


Gen.  xxvii. 
33- 


Cen.  xliii. 

II. 

Gen. 


Job  i.  I. 
Num.  xii 


the  direction  of  {or  for)  the  ten  elders,"  should  not  also  Ethan 
the  Ezrahite  be  reckoned  among  them  ?  Rab  said,  Ethan  the 
Ezrahite  is  Abraham;  for  it  is  written  in  one  place,  "  Ethan  the 
Ezrahite,"  and  in  another,  "  Who  hath  raised  up  one  from  the 
east  {niimmizrah)  ?  "  If  it  be  said,  and  Ethan  may  be  Jacob,  as 
it  is  written,  "  And  the  sun  rose  upon  him,"  that  only  means  to 
say,  the  sun  that  had  gone  down  for  his  sake  now  rose  for  his 
sake.  Assuredly,  Moses  is  reckoned  in  the  number  (of  the 
elders),  and  Heman  is  reckoned  in  their  number :  but  Rab  said, 
Heman  is  Moses,  as  it  is  written  in  one  place  "  Heman,"  and  in 
another,  "  He  is  faithful  {ne'eman)  in  all  my  house."  There  were 
two  of  the  name  Heman. 

*  Whereas  it  is  said,  *'  Moses  wrote  his  own  book,  and  the 
passage  about  Balaam  and  Job,"  that  agrees  with  the  words  of 
Rabbi  Levi  bar  Lachma,  who  said,  "Job  lived  in  the  days  of 
Moses,"  for  it  is  written  in  one  place,  "O  that  (epho)  my  words 
were  now  written,"  and  it  is  written  in  another  place,  "  For  {epho) 
wherein  now  shall  it  be  known  ?  "  But  he  might  be  said  to  have 
lived  in  the  days  of  Isaac,  for  it  is  written,  "  Who  then  {epho)  is 
he  that  hath  taken  venison  ?  "  Or,  again,  in  the  days  of  Jacob, 
for  it  is  written,  "  If  it  be  so  now  {epho),  do  this."  Or,  again,  in 
the  days  of  Joseph,  for  it  is  written,  "  Where  {epho)  are  they 
feeding  ? "  But  you  are  not  to  think  so,  for  it  is  written,  "  Oh 
that  they  were  inscribed  (ipHVl)  in  a  book,"  but  Moses  is 
called  "  the  Inscriber "  (ppino),  as  it  is  written,  "  And  he  pro- 
vided the  first  part  for  himself,  for  there  was  the  law-giver's 
(Inscriber's,  ppIDD)  portion  reserved." 

*  Rabba  said,  "  Job  lived  in  the  days  of  the  spies,"  for  it  is 
written  in  one  place,  "  There  was  a  man  in  the  land  of  Uz  (pv), 
whose  name  was  Job,"  and  in  another  place,  "  Whether  there  be 
wood  (f  y)  therein,"  in  the  one  place  "  Uz,"  in  the  other  "  ]Ez." 
Thus  Moses  spake  to  Israel,  bidding  them  see,  whether  there 
was  there  the  man  whose  years  were  as  a  tree,  and  who  defends 
his  generation  like  a  tree. 

'  There  sate  one  of  our  Rabbins  before  Rabbi  Samuel  bar- 


EXCURSUS  B.  277 

Nachmani,  and  said,  *' Job  was  not,  nor  was  created,  but  is  a  Excurs.b. 

parable."     He  said  unto  him,  "Against  thee,  pronounces  the 

sentence,  'There  was  a  man  in  the  land  of  Uz  whose  name 

was  Job.'  "     "  Still,  the  words,  *  But  the  poor  man  had  nothing  2  Sam. 

save   one  little  ewe  lamb,  &c.,'  what  are  they  but  a  parable  ? " 

He  replied:    ''  Even  if  it  be  granted  so,  there  is  still  his  name 

and  the  name  of  his  town ;  to  what  end  do  they  serve  ? " 

'  Rabbi  Jochanan  and  Rabbi  Eleazar  believed  that  Job  was  one 
of  those  who  went  up  out  of  the  captivity  (Golah),  and  that  his 
School  was  in  Tiberias.  Others  reply  :  The  days  of  the  years 
of  Job  began  at  the  entering  of  Israel  into  Egypt  and  ended  at 
their  going  forth.  But  it  is  not  so ;  it  is  only  said.  His  days 
were  as  many  as  from  the  entering  in  of  Israel  into  Egypt  unto 
their  going  forth  from  the  same. 

'  Some  object :  Seven  prophets  prophesied  to  the  Gentiles,  and 
they  are  Balaam,  and  his  father,  and  Job,  Eliphaz  the  Temanite, 
and  Bildad  the  Shuhite,  and  Zophar  the  Naamathite,  and  Elihu 
the  son  of  Barachel  the  Buzite.  But  think  you  that  Elihu  the 
son  of  Barachel  was  not  of  Israel  ?  Surely  he  was,  and  yet  he 
prophesied  unto  the  Gentiles.  But  thus,  too.  Job  prophesied 
unto  the  Gentiles.  Therefore,  is  it  not  the  case  that  all  the  pro- 
phets prophesied  unto  the  Gentiles  ?  In  some,  the  substance  of 
their  prophecies  is  directed  towards  Israel,  in  others  towards  the 
Gentiles. 

'  Some  reply :  There  was  one  pious  among  the  Gentiles,  and 
his  name  was  Job ;  and  he  was  only  born  into  the  world  that  he 
might  receive  his  reward.  When  the  Almighty  brought  chastise- 
ment upon  him,  he  began  to  revile  and  curse  ;  and  the  Almighty 
doubled  unto  him  his  reward,  to  the  intent  that  he  might  drive 
him  from  the  world  (to  come),  as  it  is  said,  "  And  the  Lord  gave  Job  xiii. 
Job  twice  as  much  as  he  had  before." 

'  This  is  the  teaching  of  the  Tannaim.     Rabbi  Eleazar  saith, 
Job  lived  in  the  days  of  the  judging  of  the  Judges,  as  it  is  said, 
"Behold,  all  ye  yourselves  have  seen  it."    What  generation  was  fobxxvW. 
it  that  was  all  vanity  ?  he  saith,  it  was  the  age  of  the  judging  of  "' 


278  THE   CANON    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  B.  the  Judges.     Rabbi  Jehoshua,  the  son  of  Korkhah,  used  to  say. 

Job  xiii.  15.    "  Job  Hved  in  the  days  of  Ahasuerus,  as  it  is  said,  '  And  there 

were  no  women  found,  &c.'  "    What  was  the  generation  in  which 

they  sought  for  fair  women  ?  he  saith,  it  was  the  generation  of 

Ahasuerus.     But  it  might  have  been  in  the  days  of  David,  as  it 

I  Kings       is  written,  "  So  they  sought  for  a  fair  damsel."    There,  howeverj 

^'J'.  ..         it  was  "  throu2:hout  all  the  coasts  of  Israel,"  here  it  is  "  in  all 
Esi/i.  11. 3.  ^  ' 

the  provinces  of  thy  kingdom." 

'  Rabbi  Nathan  used  to  say,  Job  was  in  the  days  of  the  king- 
/obi  15.       dom  of  Sheba,  as  it  is  said,  *' Sheba  fell  upon  them  and  took 

them  away."  And  the  Wise  Men  used  to  say,  "  Job  was  in  the 
Job  1 17.       days  of  the  Chaldeans,  as  it  is  said,  '  The  Chaldeans  made  three 

bands.' "    And  there  are  some  who  say  "  Job  was  in  the  days  of 

Jacob,  and  Dinah,  Jacob's  daughter,  was  his  wife " ;  for  it  is 
fob  ii.  10.  written  in  one  place,  "  Thou  speakest  as  one  of  the  foolish 
Cen.  women  speaketh,"  and  in  another  place,  "  Because  he  wrought 

xxxiv.7.        folly  in  Israel." 

'  And  thus  all  the  Tannaim  considered  that  Job  was  of  Israel, 

save  those  referred  to  under  "  There  are  some  who  say." 

'  If  it  should  occur  to  you  that  he  was  of  the  Gentiles,  ask 

yourself,  "  From  IMoses  onward,  who  is  there  among  the  Gentiles 
Ejt:.  xxxiii.  to  whom  the  Shechinah  was  revealed.'*"  as  it  is  said,  "  So  that  we 
E  xxiv  ^^  separated,  I  and  thy  people,  &c.,"  and  it  is  written,  "  Before 
10.  all  thy  people  I  will  do  marvels."  ' 

Upon  this  strange  document  much  might  be  said.  But  we 
must  confine  our  remarks  to  two  points  that  deserve  notice. 

(i)  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  are  stated  to  have 
'  written '  certain  books  :  Ezra,  Minor  Prophets,  Daniel,  Esther  ; 
and  Hezekiah  and  his  company  are  said  to  have  'written' 
Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes.  We  cannot 
interpret  the  word  '  write  '  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in 
which  it  is  applied  in  the  context,,  in  the  case  of  Moses,  Joshua, 
Samuel,  &c.  We  cannot  say  that  in  the  two  former  cases  it 
denotes  'committed  to  writing,'  and  in  the  other  cases  'com- 


EXCURSUS  B.  *.  279 

posed.'   Doubtless,  the  statements  in  this  document  are  generally  Excurs.  b. 
fanciful  and  wild,  and  not  least  so  in  respect  of  authorship. 
But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
were  considered  by  ignorant  tradition  to  belong  to  a  generation 
which  included  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Daniel,  and  Esther. 

In  the  other  case,  Isaiah  may  well  have  been  included  in  the 
*  company '  of  Hezekiah  ;  and,  on  the  authority  of  Prov.  xxv.  i, 
tradition  may  have  assigned  *  Proverbs '  to  this  same  band,  and, 
if  Proverbs,  then  the  other  Solomonic  writings. 

But  no  one,  after  reading  the  document  translated  above,  will 
be  surprised  at  finding  any  assertion,  however  improbable,  re- 
specting the  origin  of  the  books. 

(2)  The  books  stated  to  have  been  written  by  Hezekiah  and 
his  council  were  denoted  by  a  'memoria  technica,'  YiMSHaQ; 
giving  the  initial  letters  of  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  and 

Ecclesiastes  (n^np,  on-'EJ^n  i''r,  "hm,  in^yti'°). 

The  books  stated  to  have  been  written  by  the  '  Men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue '  were  also  denoted  by  a  '  memoria  technica,' 
QaNDaG,  giving  the  fourth  letter  of  Ezekiel,  the  second 
letter  of  'The  Twelve,'  the  initial  letter  of  Daniel,  and  the 
second  letter  of  '  Roll  of  Esther '  (n^D,  i?t<on,  "iK^y  h'^l^,  i'NpTn^ 
nnD«). 

This  selection  of  letters  appears  at  first  sight  arbitrary.  But 
it  is  not  so  in  reality.  The  first  letters  of  Ezekiel,  Twelve,  and 
Roll  (d,  ^,  ••),  had  been  used  up  in  the  previous  '  memoria  tech- 
nica.' The  only  '  initial '  in  QaNDaG  is  D  for  Daniel,  and  D 
had  not  occurred  in  the  previous  'memoria  technica.'  If  the 
initial  letters  of  the  three  other  books  could  not  be  used  without 
confusion  with  those  of  Isaiah,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Proverbs, 
then  the  second  letter  would  naturally  be  selected,  which  explains 
the  N  and  the  G.  But  the  Q  presents  a  difficulty ;  it  is  neither 
the  first,  nor  the  second,  but  the  fourth  letter  of  Ezekiel's 
name :  and  what  is  more,  it  has  occurred  in  the  previous 
'  memoria  technica.'  The  last-mentioned  fact  possibly  accounts 
for  its  selection.     In  order  to  facilitate  the  recollection  of  the 


28o    THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

ExcuRs.  B.  two  groups  of  books,  the  second  group  was  denoted  by  a 
memorial  word  whose  initial  letter  (Q)  recalled  the  last  letter  of 
that  which  denoted  the  first  group.  Thus  each  memorial  word 
supplied  a  key  to  the  remembrance  of  the  other :  the  one  ending, 
the  other  beginning  with  Q.