with the other Scriptures. They had asserted, and even established, their divine origin, but they had not been gathered into one collection with the law and the more ancient records. The second temple was about to be erected, and the Mosaic worship was again, after seventy years interruption, to be established. Now, what more natural, what more likely than that the nation should feel the need of an authoritative collection of sacred books, and that in such circumstances and at such a crisis the need should be supplied?

What is thus rendered probable from the circumstances of the case external evidence contributes to establish. By an uncontradicted Jewish tradition the prophetic office is said to have ceased in the period immediately following the exile. There was after that time no certain succession of divinely authorised teachers, nor indeed any teacher that could be placed upon an equality with the ancient prophets. Such is the testimony of Josephus in what is commonly called his first book against Assion, sec. 8. He states that the Jews had a collection of books containing the records of past times, which they justly believed to be divine. Five of the books containing the early traditions concerning the origin of the human race, the establishment of Judaism with its laws and usages, in fact a compendium of all that was known respecting remote ages down to the death of Moses, he attributes to that lawgiver. Thirteen more books, containing a record of events intimately concerning his nation from the time of Moses to Artaxerxes, he attributes to prophetic authorship. He also states that there were four other books, consisting of hymns to God and precepts for the regulation of human life; but he does not attribute them to any class of authors nor to any author in particular. These twentytwo books, reaching up to the reign of Artaxerxes, constituted the sacred writings of the Jews according to the testimony of Josephus. He also states that the history of his nation from the time of Artaxerxes had been written, but it was never esteemed of like authority with the more ancient writings; and he assigns as the reason of this that there had not been an exact succession of prophets; indeed, Josephus never ventures, except in one solitary instance, to speak of any man during the post-exile period as a prophet; and in this instance, which is that of John Hyrcanus, he does not refer to the high gift which characterised the ancient

*

The canonical books are differently arranged in the lists of different ancient authors, and the total numbers are not the same. The twenty-two of Josephus were obtained by reckoning the twelve minor prophets as one-Jeremiah and Lamentations as one-Nehemiah and Ezra as one the two books of Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel as each one-and Judges and Ruth as one. Twenty-two gives the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, and was probably selected by Josephus on this account to signify completeness. Reckoning each book separately we obtain thirty-nine, the number prefixed to the authorised English translation.

prophets, but to an uncommon practical sagacity. The prophetic line had ceased, and after that there was no addition made to the collection of sacred writings. Prophetic sanction, if not authorship, appears to have been indispensable for the investment of any book with authority as a rule of faith and practice. In the absence of an exact prophetic succession, Josephus affirms that there had been no addition made to the sacred writings of his nation after the reign of Artaxerxes, neither had there been any part taken from the collection, nor any change made in the books composing it.

The son of Sirach, who lived in the second century before Christ, furnishes similar testimony. He speaks of the prophetic gift as belonging to the past, and in the prologue to his book he refers to the canon as completed, and that not only in the time when he wrote but in the days of his grandfather, so that the canon was a complete collection two generations earlier than that in which he lived, and this reference is not made as if the canon had just been closed, but as if it had already existed in a settled form for some length of time. His grandfather, Jesus, had devoted himself to the reading of the law, the prophets, and the other books of the fathers, so that the collection then existed, and existed in the threefold division generally adopted among the later Jews. In apologising for any defect in the rendering of his grandfather's words he reminds his readers "that things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue have not the same force in them." A writer always suffers disadvantage more or less in translation. And this he avers was the case with the law, and the prophets, and the other books, for there was a difference in clearness and force between them as original and translated. We have in this statement a direct reference to a translation made for the benefit of the Egyptian Jews, which will be of use in deciding another point of some interest. Hitzig takes exception to the designation of the third division, "the other books," as being vague and indefinite. But the designation is definite enough. The collection of sacred writings formed a complete whole, and as such was distinct from other existing literature. This collection was divided into the law, and the prophets, and the books which could not be placed in one or other of these divisions were called the other or remaining books, which designation in process of time settled down into, "the writings," and was perhaps equal in the main to the later title, Hagiographa. Now, what is most remarkable in this testimony of the son of Sirach is, that the wise utterances of his grandfather are carefully distinguished from the admittedly canonical books. The work he edited and translated forms part of a literature existing alongside the sacred oracles, but not included among them. There are not wanting in this production claims to divine illumination and guidance and to a wisdom extraordinary indeed; yet, notwith

standing such high claims and claims well sustained, for no uncanonical book in the pre-christian era equals, much less surpasses, this in profoundly wise sayings and excellent moral teaching -this treatise on practical wisdom is distinguished from the sacred books, evidence at once of the completion of the canon and the jealous care with which the Jews watched over its integrity.

was

In the Maccabean histories there is frequent lament that the prophetic spirit had then passed away. Divinely enlightened teachers no longer revealed the will of God to men. It had been so in former times, but it was not so when these interesting histories were penned. The circumstances of the people, the peculiar characteristics of the times, along with the evidence of subsequent Jewish history, contribute to determine that in the age immediately succeeding the exile the canon was completed and closed. Concerning the person or persons by whom the canon collected and left for posterity in its present form we are dependent entirely upon tradition. The books themselves furnish no certain information. Tradition, however, is unanimous in attributing this work to Ezra and his cotemporaries, who along with him constituted what has been called the Great Synagogue. The existence of this body has been treated as fabulous, but without any just grounds; for, looking at the case apart altogether from the tradition, there is nothing more likely than that in such circumstances as immediately followed the captivity the wisest and best of the nation, the last links in that exact succession of prophets with which Israel had been favoured, should unite for the supply of what was a felt want-a collection of the sacred writings.

In one of the most ancient portions of the Talmud, entitled, "The sayings of the fathers," Moses is said to have received the law at Sinai, and to have transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue, so that if this tradition be of any worth there was from the earliest periods of Jewish history a body of men in charge of the sacred writings, whose special work it was to preserve the divine oracles, that the religion of the nation might not be corrupted. In the Babylonian Gemara there is a passage the worth of which is variously estimated in controversies concerning the canon. By some it is regarded as fiction, while others conclude it to be of considerable evidential value. It is professedly a tradition, but a tradition expressing the settled convictions of the wise and good of previous ages. "The wise men say all is one, and each part again stands for itself. Who has written these books?" The reply is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Job, Joshua the

That is, each book is complete in itself, and the canonical books taken together form an organic unity.

book which bears his name and eight verses of Deuteronomy, Samuel the books named after him, along with Ruth and Judges; David the Psalms, with the assistance of ten other men; Jeremiah the prophecies bearing his name, Lamentations, and the book of Kings; Hezekiah and the men employed by him* Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes; the men of the Great Synagogue Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets, Daniel, and Esther; Ezraf the book bearing his name and the genealogies in the Chronicles; Nehemiah adding the remaining portions of the Chronicles, and thus completing the two books.

The principal objection urged against this tradition is, that it is chronologically incorrect, for Simon the Just, who lived subsequent to the time of Ezra, is represented as forming one of the Great Synagogue. Havernick maintains that the statement amounts to nothing more than that Simon belonged to the residue of the Synagogue. Now it does not appear at all unlikely that this institution survived the days of Ezra. Something analagous to it preceded him, and in all probability it remained for some time after his decease. Simon appears to have been connected with this literary college in its last days, for he belonged to the residue; so that the fact of him being represented as a member of it does not invalidate the tradition, unless it can be shown that the institution did not survive the time of Ezra. And if any weight can be allowed to common Jewish tradition, in the light of which the value of this particular tradition ought to be estimated, Simon was a near, if not the immediate, successor of Ezra, so that the time between them may not have been so great as is commonly supposed.

The verb used by the Gemara, and translated written and wrote, occasions some little difficulty; but many eminent scholars accept it in the sense of transcribe or edit, not compose: and this meaning allowed, the difficulty vanishes. This opinion is ably advocated by Keil and Havernick. The reasons assigned for it are -First, That this usage is no way anomalous, but agreeable to the idiom and use of the language, that in fact there is no other word by which the idea of literary insertion could be expressed. Second. That the subject of the tradition-the canon and its formation-is decidedly in favour of this rendering. Third. That the tradition cannot be made self-consistent if this meaning be not adopted, for Isaiah and the writings of Solomon are attributed to Hezekiah and his men, and David is said to have availed himself of the compositions of ten others in forming his Psalter.

This tradition may be compared with the older statements con

* Proverbs xxv. 1.

The book bearing the name of Nehemiah in the English translation is in this tradition probably included in Ezra.

tained in the second book of Esdras ch. xiv. 38-48, and the second part of the Maccabean writings ch. ii. 13. In these records we have unquestionably the substance of older traditions, so that the most ancient testimony that can be adduced points to Ezra and his cotemporaries as the persons by whom the canon was closed.*

That none of the canonical books date later than the time of Ezra is, as may be supposed, a disputed point. Daniel and Chronicles are the principal works assigned to a later date, while the other books are either in whole or in part allowed to have been produced either previous to the exile, or during the seventy years banishment, else in the age immediately following. Objection is taken to the book of Daniel upon lingual ground. The work is written partly in Chaldaic and partly in Hebrew. But this perhaps agrees better with the period of the captivity than with any other. In the anteexile period no such combination of the languages could have taken place; and in the later post-exile periods it became equally impossible, for the language departing more and more from the pure Hebrew settled down into the vernacular Aramaic. A still more decided opposition is offered to the book in consequence of the prophetic character of its principal portions; and the objection is advanced in support of an ante-prophetic theory. Now, before the force of this objection can be admitted, the impossibility of prophecy must be demonstrated, for this is a point that must not be taken for granted and made a basis of argument against this or any other canonical book. The two books of Chronicles are attacked through certain names mentioned in the genealogical tables, which, accepted as the representatives of successive generations, places the writer subsequent to the last named. But any person slightly acquainted with the questions relating to ancient genealogies and having no theory to serve will be slow to bring down the date of the books upon this ground. It is not a settled point that in every case the order indicates exact succession-it may include cotemporaries. There is also mention made by the chronicler of a Persian coin, but this could not be any impossible thing in the age immediately following the captivity; yet these and similar reasons have decided Colenso to place the writing somewhere about half way between the captivity and the Christian era. The objections taken to these books rest upon dogmatic foundations. The historical evidence is disregarded. We are far from endeavouring to underrate the internal difficulties presented by these inqui

The division of the sacred writings into the law, the prophets, and the writings or Hagiographa, has been made a subject of criticism by several writers. The questions raised relate chiefly to the principles by which the division was governed, and of course only indirectly relate to the question of canonicity. The division is mentioned by the son of Sirach in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, and more than once alluded to in the New Testament.