Of the ot

From what has already been said, it will be seen that it is very nearly correct to say that the OT was the result of a gradual process which began with the sanction of the Hexateuch by Ezra and Nehemiah, and practically closed with the decisions of the Council of Jamnia. It is how proposed to trace out as far as possible, for the separate ee of the Bible, the history of this process, partly by the help of the evidence already sian and partly by the light of biblical criticism.

t may be premised that without a full apprecia- tion of the latter a clear view of the history of the Canon is unattainable. Though, properly speak- ing, the writing of a book or any part of a book is a distinct thing from its authoritative reception, it will be seen that there is often, in fact, a close connexion between the two.

And it should also be remarked that the scat- tered pieces of evidence, though serving as con- venient landmarks, must not be regarded as necessarily marking distinct epochs in the history of the Canon. (a) Preparato Stages culminating in the Canonization of the Hexateuch Ezra and Nehemiah.—Even before the authorization of the Hexateuch, the idea of a Canon was not entirely new.

In the first place, the earlier strata of the Hexateuch, JE and D, were probably well known, and received with various Lees of reverence. This was true also of some other parts of the Bible, several of the psalms, most of the historical books and of the prophets. But more important than this, the various codes of the Law had been from time to time formally enforced. The Deca- logue had, according to E, been sanctioned directly by God Himself (Ex 20").

At any rate, nothing could exceed the awful reverence with which the Ark and its contents were regarded. The ancient codes preserved by JE, Ex 20-23 and 34!%, had certainly been sanctioned at a very early date. The former had, according to E, been inaugurated by a solemn act of sacrifice, Ex 24°,—a passage of great importance as showing how what was originally, as clearly seen from its contents, a sort of common law, came to be sanctioned and enforced by religious authority.

* It is well known how, at obviously a much later date, the provisions of D were enforced by the authority of Josiah (2 Καὶ 23). What was really new in the promulga- tion of the Hexateuch in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was that now we find, as it would ap- pear, not merely a law, but a sacred boa authoritatively put forward for the acceptance of the et (6) The Prophetico-Historical Canon.—It is obvi- ous that the canonization of Scripture is not likely to have stopped with the Hexateuch.

The in- creased or fresh awakened interest in their ancient history must have supplied the Jews with a fresh impulse to historical study. The feelings with which the earlier history was regarded would have insensibly extended to the later history, written in the same spirit and already bearing the impress of a bygone age.

In these writings, as well as in those containing the teachings of the Prophets, men realized that they heard the in- spired voice of the true successors of Moses, the first of prophets (Dt 18'"), It is easy to see that it would not have been long before the second group of writings came to be regarded with much It is quite im ible to fix with certainty the date of the ceremonies descri in this passage, but the laws themselves reflect the state of society as we find it in 1 Samuel, which robably continued long after in the north.

The code itself is lowaven, very complex. 612 OLD TESTAMENT CANON —_ the same reverence as the first. This feeling was certainly heightened by the cessation of the power of wens is Ever since the Captivity the pro- phetical office had been becoming more and more priestly in its character, as we see from the Bks. of Heat Zechariah, and especially Malachi, and was finally absorbed in the priest- hood.

It is to be noticed that the writer of Sirach speaks of Aaron as vested with authority to teach (Sir 457), and that according to the Chronicler it was the Levites especially who taught the people in the time of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17**). But we have to mark not only the growth of a certain feeling towards Holy Scripture, but also a literary rocess, which is likely to have taken some time.

his consisted of the collection of scattered books and leaflets, and the revision of books, and cer- tainly began long before the time of Ezra. The editorial frame-work of the Bk. of Kings is the work of the Deuteronomic school, and probably belongs to the time of the Exile. But, on the other hand, there are marks of a later revision, and in certain passages, such as 1 K 8.11, we are re- minded of P, if not of the Chronicler.

The last five chapters of Judges in their present form have close affinities with δ, The collections of prophecies of different prophets and different dates under the names of ΩΝ and Zechariah, whatever their original cause, would not have found acceptance while the memories of Deutero-Isaiah and Zechariah were still fresh. We may say then that the literary process was probably completed not many years after the time of Ezra, say about B.c.

400, and that this second group had canonical acceptance, at latest, before the time when Sirach was written, and certainly long before that work was translated. It we put the canonicity about B.c. 300-250, we shall probably be not far wrong, provided that we remember that there is no proof of official recogni- tion by authority at such an early date. It should be borne in mind that the Chronicler (c.

300) treated the history in a way difficult to explain, had he been possessed with our ideas of canonicity. On the other hand, the separation of Joshua from the Law, and its combination with the other historical books of the second group, suggests that at the time when made—long before B.c. 130 (Prologue to Sirach)—there was no very marked difference of estimation between the first and second groups.

But we must not, again, make the assumption that all books of this second group were necessarily regarded with the same degree of reverence and authority. (6) The canonicity of the Hagiographa.—This is more difficult to trace, and more complicated. The very name reminds us that we are dealing with a heterogeneous collection, which could not, like the two other groups, be classed under a really descriptive name.

It would be a great mistake to take it for granted that their canonicity began to be deliberately considered after the canonicity of these other groups had been completely recognized. In the case of Psalms and Proverbs this was almost certainly not the case. _ Psalms.—The composition of the Psalter shows it to be evidently a compilation from several earlier collections differing very much in character and age.

The order suggests that the Psalms were generally placed in the same relative position in the complete Psalter which they had already occupied in these earlier collections. Thus we find together the Psalms of ‘the sons of Korah’ 42 (+43)-49. 84. 85. 87. 88, the Psalms of Asaph 73- 83, ‘songs of degrees (?

steps)’ 120-134, and other cases where similarity of titles or refrains connects consecutive Psalms, showing that such groups of Psalms were taken en bloc from collections entitled ‘The Psalm-book of Korah,’ ‘ The psalms, maschils, OLD TESTAMENT CANON and songs of Asaph,’ ‘The songs of degrees, etc. So far from critical were the compilers of the Psalter that they did not venture in certain cases to decide whether a poem was more correctly described as a psalm or a song (see titles of 75.

76, etc.) Still more curious is the leaving of the note, ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended,’ after the Doxology which closes Ps 72, although, as the Psalter now stands, the precedin: Psalm is as a fact ascribed to Solomon, and sever: later Psalms are ascribed to David. The arrange- ment of Psalms ‘to David’ makes it likely that at least two independent earlier collections were originally so entitled.

All this tends to show that there was a wide interval of time between the composition of the majority of the Psalms and their final compilation in one complete Psalter. The character of the Psalms themselves is very various. Some are comparatively crude, both in conception and language, and with sometimes a corrupt text, and appear as though a wide interval lay between their composition and the litera tendencies of later Judaism, as, e.g., Ps 10?" 14, (ct. 53) 16, ete.

There is a very fair probability that these at least are pre-exilic. Some bear a striking resemblance to Jeremiah, and have been frequently regarded as having been written either by him or writers of his school (esp. 31. 35. 69. 79). Many are of a personal character, as 4. 12. 13. 139, etc.; others were obviously composed for public worship, to which they have a distinct reference, as 95. 96. 98. 99. 100, ete. ete.

Others, again, suggest that, originally personal, they have afterwards been adapted for liturgical use, as 69. 77. 102. This fade many to suspect that in some cases a national interpretation has been placed on Psalms origin- ally designed to express the writer’s own feelings eit experience. In some Psalms, as in Ps 118, the national interpretation of the Ist person is obvious, and, of course, original.

Unfortunately it is impossible to fix a date for the use of Psalmsin religious worship with absolute certainty. It appears almost certain that psalmody did not form a regular part of the temple worship before the Exile. The Bk. of Kings, at any rate, says nothing of it. In the face of this, the constant mention of psalm-singing ae the Chronicler, as at the Dedication of the temple, 2 Ch 5-8, is of no historical value for the time of which it treats.

It is of a piece with the ascription to David of the founding of the singing guilds, 1 Ch 25. The value of the statements in Ezra and Nehemiah are more difficult to estimate. We certainly find singers mentioned, not only in the editorial introduction to the account of Ezra’s work (Ezr 77), but, what is far more important; in the letter of Artaxerxes himself (73). They are spoken of in a way which implies that they are part of a definitely organized system.

But the question arises whether that system was actually at work in Jerusalem, or had been organized by Ezra and his school in Babylon. What is known of the Priestly Code in relation to the Hexateuch makes it extremely probable that a new and highly developed ritual had been so formulated. [Ὁ is also of some significance that in P only we find the ritual use of trumpets (Lv 23%, Nu 10”).

On the other hand we do find, in the list preserved of those who came up from Babylon, the mention of 148 (128, Ezr) singers, ‘sons of Asaph’ (Neh 74, Ezr 2"). It is not eas to reconcile this statement with Neh 7%, Ezr 2®, where singing men and singing women are men- tioned apparently as among the slaves of the exiles. Is it that these were menials who had no connexion pat or that the guild itself was what had been a menial office ?

with the sacred a creation out o Singers are also mentioned by Nehemiah as having been appointed by himself, Neh 74. In his account OLD TESTAMENT CANON of the dedication of the wall, 12”’-%, the singers and players of instruments take a very prominent part. It is said that they had esta nie ed them- selves in villages, etc., round Jerusalem, whence they were gathered by Nehemiah, 12%-*°. The statement in v.

“ that the singers had performed their office ‘in the days of David and Asaph,’ is made, not Le Nehemiah, but by the editor. The account of the music and psalmody in the service connected with the foundation of the temple in Ezr 3'" is also editorial, and is too much like the accounts of similar services given by the Chronicler (1 Ch 16, 2 Ch 5. 207-** ete.) to be free from suspicion.

It is sufficiently evident that on all such occasions he read into the narra- tive the religious customs of his own day, which were then Tenaga to have originated with David. But, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that in this case he was describing events much nearer to his own day, and some time must be allowed for such traditions to have grown up.

Putting all the facts together, it would probably be near the truth to say that music was first in- troduced into religious worship to some small extent with the second temple, but was first thoroughly organized and greatly developed under the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah.

This use of Psalms, under the control of the Priestly guilds, would have given authority not only to those specially composed for the purpose, but to those adapted to liturgical use, and they would have required no further sanction. See, further, artt. PRAISE IN OT, and PSALMs. Proyerbs.—It was different with the Bk. of Proverbs. It belongs to a class of literature the sanction of which is by no means so obvious.

If required to place in order of time the Prophetic, the Priestly, and the Ethical spirit among the Jews, we should certainly give them in this order. The last of the three is most closely connected with modern Judaism. The destruction of Jeru- salem and the abolition of its sacrificial system must have gone far to give it strength and per- manence, but in its inception the ethical spirit is of much earlier date, as we see from Sirach.

But, as we see from the Prologue, Sirach itself was an imitation of earlier books, among which we must obviously reckon Proverbs; and these earlier books are spoken of as already ancient, ‘the other books of our fathers,’ and yet are not so ancient as the prombete, unless indeed the phrase ‘others that ave followed in their steps’ points especially to Chronicles, which was in a sense an imitatica of the prophetic Bk. of Kings.

The fact, too, that Solomon came to be looked upon as the fountain of proverbial philosophy, is at once a proof of the relative antiquity of the germ and the sanction of what came to be ascribed to him. When once Solomon had gained this reputation, it became customary to ascribe proverbs tohim. That many of these were originally popular sayings, handed down as ancient saws, hardly needs saying.

That they were gathered together into small collections first, and that such collections were afterwards Bat together so as to form our present Bk. of Proverbs, is evident to any one who carefully studies the book. See PROVERBs. With regard to the canonicity of this book, all that we can positively say is, that it is extremely unlikely that a scoop sacred character should have begun to be attached to such proverbs only when the whole collection had been finally com- pleted.

The words at the beginning of Pr 25! ‘These also are Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out,’ make it probable that, when what is believed to be the earliest collection was made, the proverbs which composed it were already believed to be Solomon's, OLD TESTAMENT CANON 613 It proves at the least that, when the final compila- tion was complete, this earlier collection was headed by a title which the compilers did not venture to disturb.

The case is parallel to that of Ps 72%. We may, then, ἘΠῚ say that the canonicity of the whole Bk. of Proverbs was firmly established long before B.c. 180, and that of parts of it, certainly chs. 25-29 were recognized long before, possibly as early as the reign of Hezekiah. Ecclesiastes.—In point of canonicity Ecclesiastes stands on quite a different footing from Proverbs.

It was neither a collection of sayings tradition- ally ascribed to Solomon, nor was it a collection of booklets which bore his name. Ecclesiastes was apparently ascribed to Solomon neither by ancient tradition nor by literary criticism ; but the person of Solomon is assumed by the writer. s the authorship of Solomon is precluded on literary sromndles there are no alternatives except either a eliberate fraud or a mere literary device designed to give force to his subject.

The latter alterna- tive seems by far the most probable. It was written in a literary age (see 193), when a modern book would not easily be mistaken for one of ancient date, by a writer, probably an old sage, who had observed much and studied much, and felt that he had a right to speak (125-13), and was giving such advice as Solomon himself might have given had he lived in his day.

That in a less critical age this literary device should have been misunderstood, and that, if so, it should have done much for the reception of this book, is not surpris- ing. How soon this was so, or the exact date of its composition, must be largely matter of con- jecture. We cannot be certain that it was known to the writer of Sirach. On the other hand, it is said to have been quoted by one Simon, son of Shetach, in the first ἍΜ of the century before Christ (see Buhl, pp. 15, 17).

It probably belongs to the literary age which terminated in the dis- turbed period of the Maccabees, and was cer- tainly authoritatively recognized by the Council of Jamnia at the end of the Ist cent. A.D. See, further, art. ECCLESIASTES. Song of Songs.—The Song of Songs is so far like Ecclesiastes that the subject of the poem is connected with the person of Solomon, not obviously as the assumed writer, but as one of the principal characters.

The poem, or group of poems, is, how- ever, probably ancient, and originally, there can be no serious doubt, quite secular in character. According to 1 K 4% Solomon was traditionally known as a writer of poetry, and it is quite possible that this work was ascribed to him at a comparatively early date, before the Exile. The allegorical interpretation of the book would have naturally followed. He who was believed to have drawn lessons of morality from plants and animals (cf.

1 K 45 with Pr 658 26%% etc.), might easily be supposed to have intended some ieep mystic meaning in this simple story of pure and natural love. In this case the reception of the book was probably slow and gradual, and naturally enough met with considerable opposition. Had itnot been for its allegorical interpretation, it is unlikely that it would have gained a place in the Canon. The Christians accepted the book, but gave it a new allegorical interpretation of their own.

ἥ Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.—The Bks. of l and 2 Chronicles, with Ezra and Nehemiah, the four originally one book, were probably received as a trustworthy record before the beginning of the 2nd cent. B.c. As already shown, at least Chronicles and Nehemiah are referred to in the praise of famous men in Sir 44-50. Probably they were not written much more than a century earlier, about B.C. 330 (see Kent, Hist. Heb, People, ii.

8), and their character suggests that they were com- eee τ ὐνασδυυσυν τ EEE τ τὰν του τ ., , ς, -,, ", 614 OLD TESTAMENT CANON OLD TESTAMENT CANON i piled by authority. If so, the dates of authorship and canonicity are the same. In any case their composition and reception belong to a time not long after the kg revision of the Bk. of Kings, though possibly a much longer time after the general recognition of an earlier edition, so to speak, of that book.

The two books present an instructive contrast. The Chronicles are, unlike Kings, not so much a compilation as a composition. It is only exceptionally that fragments of ancient documents appear in their original shape. For the most part the whole has been recast in its relatively modern form, with its characteristically modern spirit. It shows the marks of a definitely literary effort in a literary age.

Its treatment of ancient history may be compared in some respects with that of the later Targumsand Midrashim. In fact, the word midrash aisealy occurs in 2 Ch 135 247 (AV ‘story’), though hardly in its later technical sense. The book was probably intended to pre- serve in a permanent form the methods of teaching common in the Jewish schools. That such a literary school should icra into existence after the period of Ezra and Nehemiah is highly prob- able.

It would have been the natural result of the impulse given by them to the study of Scripture. ob.—Of Job it is difficult to speak very posi- tively. The allusion in Ezk 14%:*% may prove nothing more than that the story of Job, or some- thing like it, was current in the prophet’s day. The mention after Daniel (in this case certainly it is the person, not the book, we have to think of) may suggest that the story had only recently become known.

In any case the point of the allusion does not make it necessary to suppose that Ezekiel necessarily regarded Job as a fnterigal person. The book bears traces of the kind of religious feelings which were quickened by Deutero- nomy, and betrays a still closer relationship to Deutero-Isaiah. Indeed the suffering Servant of J” forms a striking parallel to the leading thought of the book. Yet the relation between the two appears to be collateral rather than of direct ancestry.

This resemblance, taken with the allu- sions to astronomy in Job 9° 26%, suggest that Job was written in Babylon about the same period. This would be all but a certainty if we could be sure that Job’s sufferings are meant to be an allegory of those of the exiled Israel. Ruth and Lamentations.—The Bks.

of Ruth and Lamentations, especially if the latter was believed to be the work of Jeremiah, could hardly have received general recognition when the historico- prophetic group was completed, as they would certainly have found a place in it, the former as a historical, the latter as a prophetic work. Apart from a very possible reference in Sir 495 to La 1-4 ete.

, we have no evidence to show whether they were known or not to the writer of Sirach, and the internal evidence is too uncertain in this case to give us any real help. All that we can positively say is that both were thoroughly recognized by the end of the Ist cent. A.D., as seen by the testimony of Josephus and the Council of Jenna and no doubt is expressed of their genuineness. They must have been received long before ; but how lon we can only guess.

This is, however, just one o those cases in which the evidence of silence is of very little value against a book. The Bk. of Ruth would hardly have suited the purpose of the writer of Sirach, who includes no women among his worthies. Daniel and Esther.—The Bks. of Daniel and Esther stand on a very different footing. Had they been known, Daniel and Mordecai would certainly have found a place in Sir 44-50 among the ‘ famous men.

’ It is true that Ezekiel (14°) knows of Daniel as one whose purity of life might be supposed to have secured the land from Divine wrath, but not necessarily as the great hero of the Babylonian and Persian courts. How could Sirach have failed to commemorate him who combined all the courage of a David with the wisdom of a Solomon? The book bears obvious internal evidence in chs.

7-9 of a date subsequent to the Maccabean era, From the similarity of subject it seems not unlikely that both Daniel and Esther were derived from the same Eastern source. But it could hardly have been earlier than the beginning of the 150 cent. B.c. The history of the reception of the books forms a rather marked contrast. The Bk. of Daniel, as might have been expected from its contents, appears to have gained favour without opposition, ἐπα Daniel is spoken of in the NT as a prophet (Mt 24%).

Esther, on the other hand, was received with considerable hesitation, and whether on this ground or otherwise there is less evidence in its favour. It is not quoted in the NT, which may be only accidental; and it is at least possible that the feast of Jn δ᾽ is that of Purim, which would prove the recognition of the book. Several Rabbis ob- jected to the book about the 1st and 2nd cents. A.D., and one at least in the 3rd (see Buhl, p.

25); several Fathers, Melito (perhaps by error), Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, omit it from their lists; and it was not regarded as canonical by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Some objections or suspicions arose, among the Jews at any rate, from its secular character ; others, in the opinion of some writers, merely from the fact that the fast of 13th Adar, in connexion with Haman’s plot (ch. 9!)

, conflicted with the feast of the same day commemorating the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor (1 Mac 7"; see Ryle, p. 139). viii. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OBTAINED.—In the foregoing inquiry the following facts seem clearly established :— (1) Canonicity was, like the composition of the books itself, a gradual process. ‘The Council of Jamnia, for example, gave a formal sanction to what had already become, more or less definitely, the public opinion of Jewish writers.

(2) Such sanction appears to have been, in fact, accidental, that is to say, not by any means essential to the idea of canonicity. All the OT books, with a few possible exceptions, would have won their way into the Canon had no such council decided the matter, just as the NT became canonical without the sanction of a general council. (3) The history of canonicity cannot be com- pletely separated from the history of the books themselves.

The separate parts of a book may have been, and in some cases certainly were, accepted authoritatively before the whole was written. This was especially the case with the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Proverbs. (4) This consideration, among others, points to the conclusion that canonicity was, in its earliest stages, a question of degree, and even, to some extent, of kind.

One book, the Pentateuch, for example, was accepted hecause formally sanctioned by authority ; another acquired its authority from its long acceptance by students and writers; a third, from its liturgical use. Again, various factors contributed to the idea of canonicity ; among them, certainly, real or supposed antiquity, and also, to some extent, aatherehie by some famous person, such as David or Solomon.

(5) Lastly, while the beginnings of canonicity lie in the misty period of ancient Jewish history, it may be said to have reached its final stage at the Council of Jamnia, where all our OT books were sanctioned; though, on the one hand, the great bulk, at any rate, were practically recognized as canonical long before; and, on the other, some hesitation in isolated cases was not uncommon OLD TESTAMENT CANON OLD TESTAMENT CANON 615 even after the council.

Since then, time, habit, and experience have continued to give strength to its decisions. ix. CLAIMS OF THE APOCRYPHA TO CANONICITY. —So far, the investigation has concerned itself almost exclusively with the Canon accepted by the Jews and by the Reformed Churches of modern times, A few words are necessary concerning the claims of the Apocrypha to canonicity. In the Roman Catholic Church it depends upon the sup- posed inspiration of the Vulgate.

Thereis, however, some truth in the canonicity of the Apocrypha. The LXX contained these books very nearly as we have them now in our English Apocrypha. The earliest extant LXX texts are certainly Christian, but the references in Hebrews to Wisdom and Maccabees, to which attention has been alread called, paeeest the probability that the Gree Bible of times was the LXX as we know it.

It would thus appear that the Alexandrian Jews were accustomed to group together in their sacred literature a larger collection of books than those contained in the Palestinian Canon and sanctioned at Jamnia.

It is, then, a common practice to speak of the Alexandrian Canon as distinct from the Palestinian, and it is at least a significant fact that the only book of the NT (if we make the ssible exception of the Fourth Gospel) which has istinet aflinities with Alexandrian thought, con- tains the two striking references just mentioned to the epocryppal books.

The term is convenient, no doubt, but it is misleading if it is intended to imply that the Alexandrians τας all their sacred books, whether belonging to the Palestinian Canon or not, on the same footing. It is satisfactory enough if merely intended to mean that they made no definite distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha. Thestatement (see above) that Philo, ¢.g.

,never quotes the Apocryphal books as canonical, is to some extent outweighed, as already suggested, by his peculiar views of inspiration. His theory of an extended, if graduated, inspiration tended to weaken the conception of a special Canon. The fact that rather a ieee number of OT books * are not quoted by Philo at all, perhaps ae in the same direction. Dr.

Sanday sees in the distinction between the so-called Palestinian and Alexandrian Canons the difference between the more strictly religious school and those who welcomed a wider, if more secular, culture (Jnspiration, p. 93). With reference to the quotation of the Apocrypha by Christian Fathers, it may be enough to observe that even the ultra-Alexandrian Origen very definitely recognized that the books of the Pales- tinian Canon were in a special sense those of the Covenant (testament).

The sporadic inclusion, so to speak, of altogether uncanonical books as Scripture in the NT or else- where, such as the quotation from the Bk. of Enoch in Jude,t shows that, while a small body of learned Jewish experts in Palestine had formulated a fixed Canon, there were others whose critical knowledge was less exact, and who therefore in- cluded within their conception of Scripture a far wider circle of books. [ x. SOME PECULIARITIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF