Ficance

The art therefore resolves itself into that concerning the reception of the sacred books by the Jewish Church. When and how were certain of the sacred books a the Jews received as canonical and the rest excluded? One fact is of great importance if we would understand aright the history of the Canon, that we have to deal not with one, but with three groups of books.

These are not the result of a later subdivision of the larger ‘Divine Library’ for convenience’ sake into three smaller parts, but, with the probable = of one book (Joshua), they were with the Jews always distinct, and were regarded with some difference of feeling. In Talmudic Literature they are compared respectively, in point of sanctity, with the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the Temple Court.

The three divisions are—(1) The Law (πῦρ Torah), comprising the Pentateuch or so called ‘Five Books of Miceea” (2) The Pro- ie (o°x°3}), comprising both the historical books, oshua, Judges, | and 2Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings —called ‘the Former Prophets’; and the pro- phetical books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the book of the twelve Minor Prophets—called ‘the Latter Prophets.+ (3) The Writings (o°31n3 Kéthibhim = Gr.

ἁγιόγραφα, Hagiographa = Holy Writings), by which is probably meant the rest of the Scriptures, those which ap not come under either of the other heads. The Historical books were included under the Prophets, probably not under the belief that they were necessarily all written by well-known prophets, Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, ete., but as written under prophetic in- spiration. In this article the groups will be called the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagio- grapha.

It will be obvious at once that they are not the result of a division according to subject- matter. The Prophetico-historical books do not include Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The prophet Daniel (so expressly called in NT, Mt 2418) is placed not in the second, but in the third group. This last contains, in fact, books of the most heterogeneous sorts, poetry, ethics, philo- sophy, prophecy, etc., and its name is of the most general character.

It would, strictly speaking, apply to all the groups, and its application to this exclusively can be explained only by the history of its inclusion in the Canon. vi. EVIDENCE FOR THE JEWISH CANON.— At what period was the Canon of OT completed? or ean we indeed settle upon any exact date by which we can say that it was absolutely fixed ? πέπον Nn interpretations are given by Ryle, Canon of OT, p. 185.

t These phrases probably refer to their position in the Hebrew Bible, not to a supposed priority or posteriority of date. OLD TESTAMENT CANON (a) The Baba Bathra.—The difficulty in answer. ing this question is in part the difficulty of assign- ing an exact date to a literary document, and in part that of pobre ier degree of objection or hesitation about a k should prevent our considering it as at the time part of the Canon.

The facts are these: In the Talmudic treatise called Baba Bathra there is an extract (bar- aitha) from the Mishna which gives a virtually complete list of the books of the OT as we now know it.* The Mishna was committed to writing, so it is believed, not long before A.D. 200. On the other hand, Buhl (p. 25) refers to a Tal- mudic passage to prove that even after this a scholar was found to deny the canonicity of the Bk. of Esther.

Whether the omission of this book, or doubts expressed about it by certain Fathers, Melito, Athanasius, Gregory azianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Amphilochius, were derived from Jewish objectors, or were the result of an independent judgment, cannot be positively deter- mined. The omission by Melito may well be a slip (see Buhl, p. 58). (6) Talmudic extracts concerning disputed books, mainly 2nd cent. The evidence so far shows that by the end of the 2nd cent.

at latest the Canon was virtually settled, but that it was even then no unheard of thing to doubt the canonicity of a canonical book. As we go back through the 2nd cent., we find such doubts becoming more frequent. There are several references in the Talmud to rabbinical teachers who rejected or disputed certain books. With the exception of Ezekiel, and perhaps Jonah also (see Ryle, pp.

193, 194), what Ryle has happily called the dvriAe- γόμενα of OT seem to have been confined to the Hagiographa, and included Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, but especially the last two. The position taken up by these early Biblical critics is in many respects very interesting. They never appeal to an ancient tradition either for or against a book; nor do they, with Probably a few exceptions, discuss the question of authorship.

And yet it is almost certain that both these considerations must have influenced the formation of the Canon. The ob- jections raised suggest rather that the canonicity of the books was generally admitted—but that in the opinion of the Rabbis quoted it was liable to objection. These objections were usually based on the ground of some supposed defects in the books themselves. The depended, in short, on internal, never on external, evidence. Thus Ec 8 seemed to contradict 27, and 4?

seemed to contradict 95. Proverbs was by some withdrawn, in common with the Song of Songs, because they spoke in parables, —an interesting proof of the interpretation put upon the latter, and, in point of fact, probably the cause of its recognition as canonical. The far more serious objection was raised to Ecclesiastes, that it betrayed an Epicurean tinge, and tended to favour the Sadducean scepticism.

Thus 1* seemed to suggest a denial of the future state; 117 encouraged worldly pleasure, and, moreover, it contradicted the stern precepts of Nu 153, On this book we learn that there was, or had been, a difference of opinion between the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, the former accepting, the latter rejecting, the book. Even Ezekiel was at one time objected to on the ground that some of the provisions of the concluding chapters were contrary to those of the Levitical law.

Some of these objections and discussions, interesting as showing the extreme views of inspiration then * Baba Bathra, fol. 14b-15a, quoted in Ryle, Exc. B. The separate books of the Pentateuch are not mentioned, nor more than four of the Minor Prophets but the former are, of ovurse, implied by the ‘ Torah’ and the latter by ‘the Twelve.’ OLD TESTAMENT CANON current, belong probably to an earlier date than the 2nd cent. A.D.

, but we must discount to some extent the common tendency of tradition to ascribe stories and sayings to well-known men, especially those of an earlier period. There is sufficient evidence to show that such discussions were by no means uncommon after the Council of Jamnia, to which we must next refer. They show that during the 2nd cent. A.D. several books, of the Hagiograplia especially, were still the subject of free and frequent discussion.

This was not inconsistent with their being in a general way recognized as canonical. But such a qualified canonicity, if we may call it so, is hardly the same conception as we find at a later date. It was at this time neither irreverent nor disloyal to diapnte a canonical book (see ayes ch. x.) (c) Council of Jamnia.—It may be asked, When was this qualified canonicity conferred? Both the Midrash and the Talmud point very definitely to the close of the Ist cent. A.D. In the former a saying of R.

Simeon ben-Azai is quoted: ‘I have heard from the 72 elders, on the day when they gave R. Eleazar the presidency of the school (of amnia), that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. R. Akiba [Gritz, R. Jacob] said, “God forbid that any one in Israel should doubt that the Song of Songs defiles the hands; the whole world does not outweigh the day in which Israel received the Song of Songs. All the Kethu- bhim are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holiest.

If they have contested, it was with reference to Ecclesiastes.” But R. Johanan ben- Jeshua, R. Akiba’s brother-in-law, said, ‘‘As R. Simeon ben-Azai has laid it down, so they dis- puted, and so they decided”? (Meg. Jadaim iii. 5, quoted in Buhl, F 29). The same tradition with some variety of detail is given also in Bab. Meg. ja. These extracts refer to a council, or perhaps we should call it a debate, at Jamnia, held, it is said, about A.D. 90.

As the discussion from which the above quotation is taken is prefaced by the statement, ‘All holy scriptures defile the hands, even Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile them,’ we may naturally infer that all the disputed books, either tacitly or expneelys received the imprimatur of the council. After the fall of Jerusalem, Jamnia became the centre of Pales- tinian Judaism.

The zeal and enthusiasm which had been shown by the Jews in their sacrificial system now seems to have found a new focus in sacred literature (see Griitz, Hist. Jews, U. ch. xiii.) The decisions of this school, if not con- sidered absolutely binding, must at least have had a very strong and far-reaching influence on Jewish opinion. If it is an exaggeration to say that the anon of the OT was finally settled at the Council of Jamnia, it certainly goes a long way towards the truth.

(ad) The Second Book of Esdras, c. 90 A.D.—This tradition, in itself so probable, is confirmed, as far as it goes, by a passage in the Apocalyptic Fourth Book of Esdras (2 Es 14-), in which, according to the text of the Oriental versions,* of the 94 sacred books miraculously written out at Ezra’s quota- tion, 70 were to be kept secret, the remaining 24 divulged. The number 24 corresponds to that of the canonical books as ordinarily reckoned by the Jews.

The writer of this apocryphal work must be understood, therefore, as claiming that all the 24 canonical books were written out at Ezra’s dictation. This book is, on internal evidence, ascribed to the age of Domitian, and would there- fore be about contemporary with the Council of * The Latin MSS have 204, 84, 974. 904 being, according to Ryle, the best attested reading, but the Oriental VSS agree in θ᾽ Moe, Ryle, . 285).

This latter reading has also intrinsic probability in its favour, yet not so obviously as to have been * cause of corruption. OLD TESTAMENT CANON 601 Jamnia. The writer’s object in setting down what is Eropably a pure fiction of his own, is to give credit to his work, as one of the 70 secret books ; as far as the canonical books are concerned, it may be regarded as merely the echo of received opinion, (e) Josephus, c. 90 A.D.

—Of still greater import- ance is the poretcally contemporary evidence of Josephus: ‘For there are not with us myriads of books discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty, comprising the history of all time, which are Justly accredited (om. θεῖα, Heinichen in Euseb. 1. x.) And of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and the tradition of man’s origin up to the time of Moses’ death. This period is little less than 300 years.

From the death of Moses until that of Artaxerxes, who was king of the Persians after Xerxes, th. prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the events of their times in 13 books. The remaining 4 books contain hymns to God and counsels of life for men. From the time of Artaxerxes up to our own everything has been recorded, but the records have not been accounted equally worthy of credit with those written before them, because the exact succession of py rerhiete ceased’ (c. Ap. i. 8, quoted in Euseb.

ΗΕ πὶ. x.) Here we find not only a description of books, but a theory of canonicity. Those books could alone be accounted Scripture which preceded the death of Artaxerxes (i.e. Xerxes, see Ryle, pp. 161, 162 n.), at which time the prophetic gift ceased. Later books were, therefore, of less esteem, though they might, as, e.g., 1 Mac, have a historical value.

The very existence of such a theory seems to imply that the fact of canonicity itself was Serer Ὡς Josephus as indisputable, and this is confirmed by his further statement : ‘And we give plain proof of our attitude towards our own Scnptures: for though so long a time has passed, no one has dared either to add or change anything, but all Jews are naturally disposed from their very birth to consider them the decrees of God, to abide by them, and gladly to die, if need be, on their behalf’ (7d.)

This cannot, of course, in the face of the literary criticism of the Bible, be accepted as a historical statement of fact; but did it express the current opinion among the Jews of the time of Josephus, and, if so, how is it to be reconciled with the traditions of the Council of Jamnia, and still more with the disputations of certain Rabbis mentioned above ? But there are two other questions which it may be well to answer first.

How comes Josephus to speak of 22 books instead of 24% and what are the books which he means? Three explanations ol the number 22 have been oe (1) That of Griitz, that Josephus did not include Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, the two books which, according te the account preserved in Jadaim, were the chief subject of dispute at the Council of Jamnia.

Griitz maintains that both these books were accepted by the school of Hillel, and rejected by that of Shammai, and that the main object of tlie council was to reconcile the two schools, so that the ques- tion of the Canon was really a secondary con- sideration. But, had this been the case, Josephus as a Pharisee would almost certainly have followed the school of Hillel and accepted these books.

In any case it is not easy to understand why he should so unhesitatingly have rejected books which were soon afterwards, if indeed it was afterwards, accepted by the majority. (2) A more common hypothesis is that Josephus included Ruth in the Bk. of Judges, and Lamentations in that of Jere- miah, with the express intention of making the number of the books agree for symbolical reasons with that of the Hebrew alphabet.

The sym- bolical treatment of the number is in fact common | 608 OLD TESTAMENT CANON | enough, but Josephus himself makes no such use of it, and it seems, as far as we know, to be con- fined to Christian writers. Conspicuous instances are found in Origen (in Euseb. HZ vi. 25) and Jerome (Praf. Sam. et Mal.)

The latter, curi- ously enough, finds alternative symbolisms for the more ordinary number 24, and even for 27, the latter number being got by dividing the 5 double books — Samuel, Kings, Chraviaian Ezra- Nehe- miah, Jeremiah-Lamentations—and comparing the whole with the numbers of the alphabet plus the 5 final consonants. In this arrangement it is to be noticed, as Ryle very justly points out (Canon, p.

220), that Jerome conveniently ignores the fact that Judges-Ruth was also a double book, and follows the Greek arrangement in dividing the first three books. Their division in the Hebrew Bible is of much later date.

It is clear, therefore, that this, at any rate, was no traditional Jewish ex- jlanation, but merely the play of Jerome’s own faite (3) A third explanation is that Josephus in inclading Ruth in Judges and Lamentations in Jeremiah was so far following the arrangement of the books in the LXX, as we know it. In any case his arrangement of books appears to be peculiar, and is based entirely upon the ray ka matter.

Apart from any question arising trom the inclusion or exclusion ae Reecloeiiiatae and Song of Songs, it is evident that Daniel must be in- cluded among the prophetico-historical books, an arrangement quite at variance with Hebrew cus- tom. The descriptions, too, are somewhat vague. Even if Song of Songs is not to be included among ‘hymns to God and counsels of life for men,’ it is clear that the Bk. of Isaiah must be intended as among the prophets who wrote the history of their own times.

What makes it impossible to decide this question absolutely is that we really do not know with any certainty what was tne arrange- ment of the LXX at this date, nor do we even know whether the books were united as yet in one complete collection. It is at least as probable that it existed in the form of separate collections. Again there is some reason to suppose that the LXX did not stand alone in the combination of Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jere- miah.

In this connexion hardly sufficient weight seems to have been generally given to the express statements of Origen. In his enumeration of Scripture, he describes Judges as Kpiral, Pov, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνί, Σαφατείμ, and Jeremiah as ‘Iepeutas σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί, Ἱερεμία (in Euseb. vi. 25). This may possibly mean that in his Hebrew copy of the Bible the name ‘Judges’ included Ruth, and the name ‘Jeremiah’ both Lamentations and the Epistle (Bar 6).

* Such a rearrangement of the Hebrew books is of importance as showing that in the view of Josephus, and those who followed the same arrangement, the Hagiographa were quite as definitely Scripture as the rest. When we compare the strong statements made by Josephus as to a Canon long and unalterably fixed with the doubts concerning certain books prevalent during the Ist and 2nd cents. A.D.

, it seems that we have before us utterly irreconcilable evidence, and that we have no choice but to accept one alternative and reject theother. And this is what writers upon the Canon seem very frequently to have done. But studying the question quite impartially, it is difficult to see what ground there should be for absolute falsification on either side.

In fact the evidence of the Council of Jamnia, as far as it * The inclusion of this Epistle is certainly a difficulty; but in the face of the definite reference throughout to the Hebrew titles of the several books, it seems hardly satisfactory to say, with Ryle (p. 107), that Origen is merely following the LXX version.

It appears more probable that at this date some Hebrew MSS did actually contain this Epistle, which was re- garded by some as a genuine part of Jeremiah OLD TESTAMENT CANON goes, is too circumstantial to admit of such a supposition. On the other hand, when we examine the language of Josephus critically, there are two facts that we feel compelled to bear in mind: (1) That he was fond of rhetorical statements, which have an evident flavour of Oriental hyperbole.

He could not resist the temptation to make the most of what he thought would interest his readers. We should hardly think, for instance, of treating his account of the events connected with the last siege of Jerusalem as the language of a scientific historian.

(2) His object in speaking of the Canon afforded in this particular instance a special temp- tation to make the most of it, his intention being to show the incomparable superiority of the select Jewish writings to the ‘myriads’ (the word is itself a gross exaggeration) of Greek books whose accounts of their mythology differed so widely from each other.

In fact such an argument helps us to understand why it was that the Jewish doctors of that day were so sensitive about seem- ing discrepancies in Bible books. A clever heathen disputant might have turned the tables and said, “Why, your own sacred books often contain like contradictions.’ After all, the temptation to in- accuracy and exaggeration is one which some of our greatest historians, even in this scientific age, —Macaulay, for example,—have not been wholl free from.

We may, however, reasonably enoug ‘accept the statement of Josephus as evidence of the books commonly accepted by the most orthodox of the Jews of his day, without binding ourselves to believe that he was unacquainted with the ob- jections raised in certain quarters. But that statement can hardly be accepted as a positive pa that the Canon had been fixed long before lis time.

It has its value as making it probable that at that period the objections to certain books were confined to a few persons, whose opinions Josephus felt justified in ignoring. (f) The New Testament.—So considered, the evidence of Josephus carries us a step further, showing us that the decision of the Council of Jamnia practically endorsed what may be regarded as the public opinion of the time on the subject of the Canon. Going farther back, we come to the evidence of the NT.

From a Christian point of view this is of very special importance. There is a natural desire to prove that the OT Canon has the imprimatur of our Lord. For this very reason it is important to be on our guard against even the suspicion of prejudice. (1) The way in which the OT was regarded by our Lord and His disciples.—This is perhaps the most important feature of NT evidence for the OT Canon.

It shows unmistakably that the Chris- tians inherited from the Jews the mag neetiones belief in a body of literature of a specially sacred and Divine character. The expressions, ‘the Scrip- ture,’ ‘the Scriptures,’ ἡ γραφή, al γραφαί, are used, much as we use them now, as well-known terms which required no further explanation, as, for example, in Mt 21, Mk 14, Jn 7# 20% The boas ‘it has been written,’ γέγραπται, Mt 4% 6 1°, Ro 17, Gal 3% ete., is equivalent to saying ‘it is found in Scripture.

’ It is true that words signify- ing ‘holy’ are only twice applied to Scripture (γραφαῖς ἁγίαις Ro 1*, ἱερὰ γράμματα 2 Ti 3) put Divine influence is asserted even more emphatic- ally in such phrases as πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (2 Ti 318), Δαυεὶδ ἐν πνεύματι κύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ (Mt 22%; οὗ, Ac 435). Moreover, the authority of Scripture is appealed to very frequently as sufficient evi- dence of truth, as in Mt 21%, Lk 2427, Ro 11? ete. ete., and esp.

Jn 1085 (οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, unless our Lord is here arguing ad hominem). That authority is equally implied in such expressions as λέγει, εἴρηκε, ete., in introducing Scripture OLD TESTAMENT CANON OLD TESTAMENT CANON 609 quotations.

Sometimes, no doubt, the true subject is God, not so much as speaking through the writer, but as the actual speaker in the passage quoted, ΤῸ in Ac 13%, He 135, It is also possible to ex- plain the verb as strictly impersonal, and as prac- tically eiuiraleus to a passive. This view is supported by such a phrase as διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις λέγων (He οὖ; but the very indefiniteness is signifi- cant.

It is as though the writer were so impressed with the Divine sanctity of the words that it was of little moment to him through whom or how they were first used. In fact, he conceived of them in certain cases as being continued to be spoken, as in He 37:8, This use, though specially frequent in Hebrews, is by no means confined to that book. We have a remarkable example of it in Ac 2" τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ εἰρημένον διὰ τ. προφήτου ᾿Ιωήλ, where Joel is merely the channel of Divine communication.

So, too, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει (Ro 9%). Indeed, phrases of this kind occur so frequently, and with so much variety, that it seems most probable that the writers really thought of God or the Holy Spirit as the true subject, even though grammatically, perhaps, τις should besupplied. In He 37 10"- 16 the subject τὸ Πνεῦμα is actually given. See, further, Expos. Times, Sept. 1899, p. 533 f. (2) Books of Scripture quoted or referred toin NT.

—When we come to inquire what books were com- rised in the connotation of ‘Scripture’ as used in T, we may feel sure from Mt 5”, Lk 2477-4, Jn 1, Ac 1315 2414 28%, Ro 321, that it included, at least, the Pentateuch and the Prophetico-Historical Books, as well as the Psalms. From Ac 13” we learn that the first two groups were regularly read in the synagogue. This is confirmed by quotations in the NT from practically all these books.

+ The evidence of Lk 24" cannot be urged against the books of the Hagiographa other than the Psalms. Our Lord is referring to Scripture with special reference to the prophecies of the Messiah. A mention of books which contained no Messianic prophecies could not have been expected. In point of tact, some of the Hagiographa are introduced with what are most naturally understood as for- mulz of Scripture quotation, e.g. Pr 3% with διὸ λέγει in Ja 45 ; cf. also Ro 1919. 30.

where a quotation from Pr 25%-*2 is connected with another from Dt 32%, which is introduced with the words yéypar- tat γάρ. The same formula is used in 1 Co 3" to introduce a quotation from Job 5%. More remark- able is the mixture of Ec 7” with Ps 14! in Ro 3” prcet by καθὼς γέγραπται (see QUOTATIONS, F). he reference in Mt 23" to 2Ch 9459. "1 at least roves that that book was a recognized source vf ewish history.

It can hardly prove its canonicity, unless He 11%-88 proves the canonicity of 1 Mac.

t But the absence of quotations in NT is not enough to prove that the rest of the Hagiographa were not at this time regarded as Scripture, when we take into account that of the first two groups there are no quotations from Judges, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah, and very few from some others (1 from Nu, 1 from Jos, 2 from 1 and 2§, 2 from 1 and 2 K, 1 from Job), and, above all, that the contents of some of the books would not readily tend themselves to quotation.

(3) NT evidence to extra-canonical books.—On the other hand, it may be questioned whether the argument from the quotations in NT does not prove too much. Attention has already been * Curiously enough, the Psalms are quoted in St. John as the Law in 10% and as the Prophets in Οὐδ᾽ + Judges, though not actually του is referred to in He 1133, As the 12 Minor Prophets had long before formed one book ee it is sufficient to find quotations as we do from several of them.

t The same objection might be urged nst the reference to Judges in He 1152, were it not practically certain that it was included in ‘ the Prophets,’ so often referred to in NT. VOL. 111. —39 called to the use made of 1 Mac in He 11%. The quotation from the Book of Enoch in Jude™ is still more remarkable, showing that the writer of the Epistle accepted as a genuine prophecy of the patriarch an extract from a late book: which never had a claim to be considered part of the Jewish Canon.

To this we should add v.°, evi- dently taken also from some such extra-canonical source. It is almost certain that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews adapted the phrase ἀπαύ- γασματ. δόξης... αὐτοῦ ἴῃ 153 from Wis 7; but such an adaptation, in view of the sacredness and im- portance of the subject—the Divine nature of the on of God—would seem to imply a recognition of the authority of this book. " gen in connexion with the reference to 1 Mac in ch.

11, it suggests that this Alexandrian writer accepted the whole collection of the Alexandrian LXX as Scripture. To these should perhaps be added the quotations in Jn 7-, Eph 5%, which, though not found in their present form in any canonical books, are definitely quoted as Scripture (see QUOTATIONS, G). (4) General estimate of NT evidence.

—Speaking generally, it may be said that while there was in the early Church a very strong feeling of both the sanctity and authority of Holy Scripture, and Holy Scripture connoted at least the majority of the books of OT, there was, on the other hand, by no means a very definite universally accepted idea of the exact contents or limits of fol Beare at any rate among the Christians of the 150 century. With the learned Jews of Palestine it may have been, and probably was, different.

This attitude on the part of Christian writers towards so im- ortant a question may seem improbable and logical. It would be so in modern times. But it is neces: to bear in mind the paucity of MSS in that age, the ‘illiterateness’ of ‘ the masses,’ and, to some extent, of the writers themselves, and the difference of literary methods and standards then revalent.

Even the learned St Paul limself ardly ever quotes accurately exvept from the Law and the Psalms, and mixes up quotations from different books to a most extraordinary extent (see QUOTATIONS, F). It has already been noticed how ata later time a distinguished bisho of the Church actually found it necessary to go an inquire among the Jews what the books of the OT really were.

Taking all this into account, it is satisfactory to know that the early Church from the very first accepted very nearly, if not quite, all of the OT books as Scripture. Moreover, there is no indication that the Hagiographa were looked upon as inferior to the rest of Scripture. (g) Philo, c. 40 A.D.—Going back to the earlier part of the Ist cent. we find the evidence of Philo somewhat confusing. He appears to have been influenced by four more or flees conflicting prin- ciples.

(1) He recognized, above all, the supreme inspiration of Moses, beside which all other inspira- tion was comparatively insignificant. (2) He was influenced in his allegorical treatment of Scripture by the methods of the Palestinian Halakha, and quoted the canonical books * as if of greater autho- rity than the rest.

(3) He acknowledged the in- naar of the LXX translators, and says tha’ the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures should be rever- enced and admired ‘ as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in the facts and in the words’ (Vita Mos. ii. 5-7). (4) He advanced the theory that inspiration had a still wider sphere, and embraced the great Greek philosophers, and it would seem even himself (see Drummond, Philo, vol. i. 15, 16; Buhl, § 6. 12).

We might perhaps best represent and reconcile his different theories by supposing concentric circles corresponding to different degrees * Excepting Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther. 610 OLD TESTAMENT CANON of inspiration, the innermost containing the Law of Moses, the next the whole Palestinian Canon, the third the LXX books, the fourth including all inspired books in the very widest sense.

But it seeins hardly probable that Philo himself ever con- ceived so definite a system. All that his evidence really seems to prove is that on the whole he was inclined to regard the Palestinian Canon with rreater favour than the wider collection of the uXX. In a general way it confirms what we know from other sources, but hardly adds anything definite. (h) Prologue to Sirach, c. 130 B.c.—It is different when we get back to the evidence provided by the Prologue to the Bk.

of Sirach: ‘Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have γγοεσιροα in their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; . my grandfather, Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our Fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something per- taining to learning and wisdom.

’ Further on the translator takes occasion once more to speak of ‘the Law itself and the Prophets, and the rest of the books,’ as being superior in their original Hebrew to the translation of them (LXX). We ather from these statements that at this time the first two groups, the Law and the Prophets, were at least well-known collections of books of recog- nized authority; that there were, besides these, other books which were highly esteemed for their wisdom and moral worth.

But no very definite distinction is drawn between the spirit of this third group and the work of his grandfather, except that one is the imitation of the other. Both were actu- ated by παιδεία and σοφία. Such language is clearly inconsistent with the notion of a closed Canon, as we find it in Josephus.

The translator lived, it appears, in an age of transition, when the canon- icity of the first two groups was practically estab- lished (whether a aa or a term expressive of canonicity had yet been formulated matters little), and that of the third was still in the making. It was natural to mention the third also in speaking of the sacred literature of the Jews, but not quite in the same spirit.

Such language of commendation would have been quite out of place, almost im- pertinent, in speaking of the Law and the Prophets. A writer of his own day, Thomas Ellwood, could speak of Milton as ‘a gentleman of great note for learning throughout the learned world for the accurate pieces he had written on various subjects and occasions.’ Such language would be absurd now.

We may be practically certain from other con- siderations that this third group of books included Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and others, but we cannot use the passage quoted as an independent argument for the canonicity of any single disputed book, such as the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes. (i) Sirach, c. 180 B.C.; especially chs. 44- 50 (Praise of Famous Men).—Of even greater importance is the praise of famous men in chs. 44-50 of the Bk. of Sirach itself.

From these chapters we get a very fair idea of the view of sacred literature taken by a learned Jew of that time. His descriptions are evidently taken from the Law, the Prophets, and the historical books of the Hagiographa (Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe- miah). There are specific references to every one of them.

His conception of David is largely derived from the Chronicler, the appointment of singers, the use of psalms in the temple worship, and prob- ably the Psalter itself being ascribed to him. ‘In OLD TESTAMENT CANON all his works he praised the Holy One most high with words of glory ; with his whole heart he sang songs, and loved Him that made him. He set singers also before the altar, that by their voices they might make sweet melody, and daily sing praises in their songs’ (47% ", cf.

1 Ch 25 and Ps 149"), A similar acquaintance with Ezra and Nehemiah seems implied by what is said of Zerub- babel, Joshua, and Nehemiah (494-4), What is said of the first of these might possibly, however, have been taken from Hag 113-18 2%, and certainly bears reference to the latter; and the absence of all mention of Ezra is singular.

This shows that the author had no knowledge of those legends which connected the Canon so closely with the great founder of later Judaism (2 Es 14; see also Ryle, Exe. D), and probably is to be explained on the supposition that in his eyes Ezra was over- shadowed by Nehemiah. It is not improbable that at this time the Bks. of Ezra and Nehemiah were still parts of Chronicles. The separation of these books would have helped to bring out the per- sonality of Ezra.

Some of the other bocks of the Hagiographa seem also recognized. Sir 478, already quoted, implies the existence of a psalin- book ascribed to David; not necessarily the whole Psalter, but including apparently Ps 149 (see v.), or at least Ps 100 (see v.), and therefore probably the whole.* A similar passage, 47", speaks of the admiration which Solomon elicited by his ‘songs, and proverbs, and parables, and interpretations [obviously a mistranslation of ms‘p ‘figures’; cf.

Pr 18, where πε has the sense of ‘ figure’). This passage might be merely an adaptation of 1 K 433. 88. but it would receive a special point if Pro verbs, Song of Songs, and perhaps even Ecclesiastes, formed part of the writer’s religious library. That Proverbs was well known to him is obvious from many passages in the book, which were evidently written in mnitation of it; cf. Sir 24° with Pr 8”, Sir 1“ with Pr 17 9! ete. ete. In 48% * he makes reference to Is 40-66.

‘He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Zion’ (ef. esp. Is 401-32 615). This shows that in his time these last chapters had long formed part of Isaiah, and implies that a thorough revision of the sacred books had taken place. He would seem to have lived at the end of a literary age, such as was hardly possible in the troublous times of the Maccabees. The absence of any reference in Sir 44-50 to the Bk.

of Job is best explained on the supposition either that the latter was regarded as an allegory, or that Job did not belong to the type of those commemorated by Ben Sira, perhaps as not being of the Jewish community. either of these suppositions accounts for Daniel being ignored. ad the writer known the book, he could hardly have failed to include among his famous men one who combined the wisdom of Solomon with the courage of David. Thus the evidence of the Bk.

of Sirach points to the general conclusion that at the beginning of the 2nd cent. B.c. the whole of the Law and the Prophets, and a considerable number of the Hagio- grapha, were among the accepted components of sacred literature.

But how far the idea of a definite list of sacred books, such as we find in later times, had been formulated, or whether the sacred character of such books was officially sanc- tioned by any public authority, are questions which the evidence at present available seems insufficient to determine; and it appears some- what rash to assume, as many writers on the Canon have done, the existence of such an * The fact that these psalms are not separately ascribed to David, and do not belong to smaller Davidic ups, makes this all the more likely.

= ae OLD TESTAMENT CANON authority without more definite proof. It seems most likely that official sanction, when given, con- firmed rather than created public opinion. Between the date of Sirach and the promulga- tion of the Hexateuch in 444 there is a complete dearth of evidence, and yet there is reason to believe that this period was the most fruitful in me literary activity to which the Canon of OT is ue. (j) Ezra and Nehemiah.—(a) Promulgation of the Hexateuch, B.C. 444.

—When we go back to the times of Ezra and Nehemiah we are upon firmer ground. That the later or Eee Code was officially sanctioned is made evident by Neh 8. 9, where there are several references to what criticism has proved to be exilic or post-exilie laws (HEXATEUCH] as distinct from the ancient code of Ex 20-23 and that of Deuteronomy. These chapters of Nehemiah are also important as show- ing the origin of the conception of a Canon.

A Divine law binding the people, and publicly read before them that they might understand its pro- visions, is a very intelligible idea. Had we only the account of Nehemiah to go by, we should have imagined that it was the Law proper that was so sanctioned and publicly enforced. But the con- struction of the Hexateuch, 7.e. the Pentateuch and Joshua, points indisputably to the conclusion that the narratives are an integral part of the book.

Even supposing that at this time the Priestly Code had not been actually joined to the earlier strata of the Hexateuch (in itself an improbable assumption), yet in all these strata we find law and history intimately associated. The people had long been familiarized with the thought of a Divine purpose in the lives of their ancient fathers.

Thus the authority of Ezra and Nehe- miah would have sanctioned the conception of a sacred book, giving the early history of man and especially the Jews, associated especially with the eat names of Abraham and Moses, and contain- ing in many different forms the rules of a religious life. It would be hardly too much to say that the Hexateuch was the Bible of the Jews of Ezra’s time. (8) Influence of the Hexateuch on the formation of the Canon.

—That the same reverence should have come to be felt for the books of the later history and the works of the great teachers, as they were collected and aa ne is only the natural process of evolution. That in process of time a harvest of more miscellaneous, but all more or less religious, literature of different ages should have been gathered in and prized in its turn with at least something like the same degree of rever- ence, is equally natural.

But, it may be asked, Why did this Canon-making process stop? The true answer seems to be that the literary ten- dencies of the period following the fall of Jeru- salem, though vigorous after their kind, were intensely conservative. The learned of that day aimed at reproducing and fixing what they already had, whether written or oral, rather than at pro- ducing. The same influences which caused the publication, to use a modern phrase, of the Mishna, closed the OT Canon.

The reverence which the Jews had felt for the sanctuary was now mono- polized by the sacred writings. It was, even more than the preceding ages, an age of scribes, not of authors. If a few did write such ca gg works as 4 Ezra (the 2 Es of the Eng. Apocrypha), no Jew, in spite of the writer's own transparent artifice, dreamed of placing such a work with books long sanctified by age.

It is almost inconceivable that Ecclesiastes would have been so soon after accepted as canonical had it, as Griitz would have us be- lieve, been written about this time. Ὁ For the part attributed by Elias Levita (ἃ, 1549) OLD TESTAMENT CANON 611 to ‘the Great Synagogue’ in the process of Canon. formin , See art. SYNAGOGUE (THE GREAT), vu. CANONICITY OF THE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS