From these notices we may gather that such books as were sanctioned by the authority of Moses and the prophets (whose business it was, as the watchmen of Zion, to guard the people against either the reception of any writing that was spurious or the loss of any that was genuine) vere acknowledged by the Jews, before the Exile, as of Divine authority ; that in all probability an authentic copy was in every case laid up in the sanctuary, and placed under the care of the priests (Joseph. Antiq. v:1, 17). from which copies were taken and circulated among the people (2 Chron. xvii:9); and that collections of these were made by pious persons for their own use, such as Daniel probably had in Babylon, and such as Jeremiah seems to have had, from the frequent quotations in his prophecies from the older books. (III) it is natural to suppose that, on the return of the people from their exile, they would desire an authoritative collection of their sacred books. We know that, on that occasion, they were filled with an anxious desire to know the will of God, for neglect of which, on the part of their fathers, they had so severely suffered; and that, to meet this desire, Ezra and certain of the priests and Lcvites read and expounded the word of the Lord to the people (Neh. viii:1-8; ix:1-3). As their fathers also had been misled by folse prophets. it is natural to suppose that they would earnestly crave some assurance as to the writers whose words they might with safety follow. The Tem ple also was now bereft of its sacred treasures (Joseph. ,De Bell. Jud. vi :6 ; Tract. Rabbits, ed. Sheringham, p. 102. sq.). During the Exile. and the troublous times preceding it, several prophets had committed their oracles to writing. and these required to be added to the Canon: and the majority of the people having lost acquaint ance with the I febrew. a translation of their sacred books had become necessary. All this conspired to render it imperative that some competent au thority should, at the time of the second temple. form and fix the code of sacred truth. (IV) The time of Ezra and Nehemiah was the latest at which this could be done. As the duty to he per formed was not merely that of determining the genuineness of certain books. hut of pointing out those which had been divinely ordained as a rule of faith and morals to the Church, it was one which none but a prophet could discharge. Now. in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra, there were several prophets living, among whom we know the names of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; hut with that age expired the line of prophets which God had appointed 'to comfort Jacob and deliver them by assured hope' (Ecclus. xlix :to). On this point the evidence of Josephus, the Apocryphal books and Jewish tradition. is harmonious (crimp Joseph. Cont. •pion. i:8; I Mace. iv:46; ix:27; xiv :4 t ; Hieronym. ad. Ics. XIIX :21 ; Vitringa.
Obs. Sac. lib. vi. cap. t,, 7; Havernick, Ein/cit, - 27 Tengstenberg, cur ins A. T. i. s. 245). As the men of the Great Syna gogue were thus the last of the prophets, if the Canon was not fixed by them, the time was passed when it could be fixed at all. (V) That It was fixed at that time appears from the fact that all subsequent references to the sacred writings presuppose the existence of the complete Canon; as well as from the fact that of no one among the apocryphal books is it so much as hinted, either by the author or by any other Jewish writer, that it was worthy of a place among the sacred books, though of some of them the pretensions are in other respects sufficiently high (e. g. Ecclus. xxxiii:16-18; 1:28). Josephus, indeed, distinctly affirms (Cont. Ap. loc. cit.) that, during the long period that had elapsed between the time of the close of the Canon and his day no one had dared either to add to, or to take from, or to alter any thing in, the sacred books. This plainly shows
that in the time of Artaxerxes, to which Josephus refers, and which was the age of Ezra and Nehemiah. the collection of the sacred books was completed by an authority which thenceforward ceased to exist.
(7) Division of Canon. Division of the Canon into three parts—the Lan', the Prophets and the Irriiings.—This division is very ancient ; it ap pears in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, in the New Testament, in Philo, in Josephus and in the Talmud. Respecting the principle on which the division has been made, there is a considerable difference of opinion. The law was so named from its containing the national laws and regula tions; the other two are regarded by some as named from the character of the writings they contain; by others, from the office and station of their authors, and by others, from a sort of accidental combination, for which no reason can now be assigned. Of these, the second is the otily one that will bear the test of examination. Two very material points in its favor are: (I) That in the days of the Theocracy there was a class of persons who bore the name of Prophets frolessionally, i. c., they were persons not who were occasionally favored with Divine revela tions, but who, renouncing all other occupations, gave themselves up to the duties of the prophetic office, and (II) that of all the books in the second division the reputed authors belong to this class; while of those in the third division, none of the auzhors, with two exceptions, belong to this class. 1 he exceptions arc Daniel and Lamentations. Of these the first is only apparent, for. though Daniel littered prophecies, he was not by profession a prophet. The latter presents a greater difficulty, the best way of getting over which, perhaps, is, with Havernick, to admit It to be an exception, and suppose it made intentionally, for the pur pose of classing this hook of elegies with the Psalms and other lyric poetry of the Jews leit, sec. tt, s. 65). Adopting this theory, the title of the second division is accounted for. As for that of the third, the most probable account of it is that at first it was fuller it.• 'the other writings,' as distinguished from the law and the prophets, and that in process of time it was ab breviated into 'the writings.' This part is corn monlv cited under the title //agi,wropho (8) Subsequent History of Old Testnment Canon. The canon, as established in the time of Ezra, has remained unaltered to the present day. Sonic. indeed, have suppo,d that, because the Greek version of the Old Testament contains some book, not in the Hebrew. there must have been a double canon, a Palestinian and au Egyp tian (Semler, Appara1 ad liberaliorem T. inter pret., secs. 9, to; Corrodi, Beieuektung der Gesell. des indisch. u. Christhch. Kanons, s. 155-184; Augusti, •inleit. ins. A. T. s. 79) : but this notion has been completely disproved by Eichhorn (EM felt, bd. i. s. 23), Havernick (Ein/. i. sec. i6) and others. All extant evidence is against it. The Son of Sirach, and Philo, both Alexandrian Jews, make no allusion to it, and Josephus, who evi dently used the Greek version, expressly declares against it in a passage above referred to (sec. 6). The earlier notices of the canon simply desig nate it by the threefold division already consid ered. The Son of Sirach mentions 'the Law, the Prophets and the other books of the fathers,' and again, 'the Law, the Prophecies and the rest of the books,' expressions which clearly indicate that in his day the canon was fixed.