6. Formation of the Old Testament Canon.— By this is meant the collection into one whole of all those books whose divine authority was recog nised by the Jews, and which now form the Old Testament, as that is received by the Protestant churches—The question is, At what time and by whom was this done ? In answer to this, a very steadfast tradition of the Jews ascribes the completion of the Old Testa ment Canon to Ezra [Ezita], and certain other per sons, who, after the rebuilding of the Temple, formed with him, and under his auspices, what has been called the Great Synagogue 0+1in npjz). With out pretending to be able to give full demonstration of the accuracy of this traditionary opinion, it seems to us one which may by evidence, both direct and circumstantial, be rendered so extremely probable, that to call it in question would be to exhibit a degree of scepticism such as, in all other questions of a similar kind, would be thought highly unrea sonable and absurd. In the first place, there is the testimony of the tradition itself. The earliest form in which this appears is in the fourth book of Esdras, a work dating from the end of the first or be ginning of the second century after Christ. IIere it is asserted that Ezra, bydivine command and by divine aid, caused to be composed 94 books by three men in forty days, 7o of which, wherein is a vein of understanding, a fountain of wisdom, and a stream of knowledge,' were to be given to the wise of the people, whilst the rest were to be made public, that ' both the worthy and the unworthy might read them' (xiv. These twenty-four thus made public are, doubtless, the canonical books. The statement is very vague ; but that this is its reference is rendered probable by the appearance in the writings of some of the Christian fathers of a tradition, that the sacred writings, which had been lost during the exile, were restored by Ezra in the time of Artaxerxes by inspiration (Clemens Alex., Strom. I. 22, p. 410; Potter ; Tertullian, De cultu foem. i. 3; Tremens, Adv. Harr. iii. 21 [25], etc.) In accordance with this, as respects person and time, is the Talmudic tradition contained in the Babylonian Gemara (Tr. Baba Bathra, fol. 13 b. and 14 b. See the passages in Buxtorf's Tiberias, bk. i. c. to ; Wxhner, Antiq. Heb. i. 13). The substance of this is, that, whilst Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Hczekiah, and his friends, wrote the earlier books, the men of the Great Synagogue wrote (1mn:) Ezekiel, the Twelve [Minor Prophets], Daniel, and Esther ; Ezra his own book, and he and Nehemiah the books of Chronicles. Everything depends here on the sense in which the verb mn: is taken. That it cannot be taken throughout in the sense of compose is manifest from the fact that David is said to have `written' the Psalter through ten venerable elders, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Jeduthan, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah, which can only mean that he incorporated their compositions with his own ; and that Hezekiah and his friends are said to have written' the book of Isaiah, the Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes ; in this case it cannot denote the ori. ginal writing of the books, but must mean the ascrip.
lion (or the to-writing) of them to the canon, or the preparation and redaction of them, so as to fit them for a place in the Canon. This last is the interpretation advocated by Keil, and it has the re commendation of being suited to all the uses of the verb in this passage, without pressing into it more than it legitimately signifies. It may be added, that this is the verb used by the Targumist on Prov. xxv. 1, as equivalent to the Hebrew 71117. This more detailed statement of the Gemara throws light on and gives force to the following passage in one of the oldest of the Talmudic books, the or Sayings of the Fathers:—` Moses re ceived the Law on Mount Sinai, and gave it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets gave it to the men of the Great Synagogue.' In the book Ntv, fol. 69, 2, it is also said— Wherefore is their name called Men of the Great Synagogue? Because they restored the Crown (i e , of the Law) to its pristine splendour.' According to this, the steadfast tradition of the Jew ish books, Ezra and his contemporaries added the later books to the Canon, and thereby completed it. An attempt has been made to discredit this tradition, by adducing the circumstance that Simon the Just, who lived long after Ezra, is said, in the I'irke Aboth, to have been one of the members of the Great Synagogue ; but to this much weight cannot be allowed, partly because Simon is, in the passage referred to, said to have been one of the zemnants of the Great Synagogue, which indicates his having outlived it ; and principally because the same body of tradition which states this opinion, makes him the successor of Ezra : so that either the whole is a mistake, or the Simon referred to must have been a different person from the Simon who is commonly known by the title of Just' (Cf. Othonis, Lex. Rabbin. p. 604, Gen. Havernick's Einleitung in das A. T. Th. i. Abt. I. s. 43). Or we may adopt the opinion of Hart mann (Die Enge Verbindung des Alt. Test. mit d. Neuen, s. 127), that the college of men learned in the law, which gathered round Ezra and Nehe miah, and which properly was the synagogue, con tinued to receive accessions for many years after their death, by means of which it existed till the time of the Maccabees, without our being required to suppose that what is affirmed concerning its doings in the time of Ezra is meant to refer to it during the entire period of its existence. Suspi cions have also been cast upon this tradition from the multitude of extravagant wonders narrated by the Jews respecting the Great Synagogue. But such are found in almost every traditionary record attaching to persons or bodies which possess a na tionally heroic character ; and it is surely unrea sonable, because a chronicler tells one or two things which are incredible, that we should disbe lieve all besides that he records, however possible or even probable it may be. Je ne nie pas,' says Fabricy (Des Titres Primitifs de la Revelation, i. 87, Rome, 1772), que les Docteurs Juifs n'ayent avance bien des chhueres au sujet de cette Grande Synagogue ; mais laissons le fabulcux, et prenons ce qu'il y a de vrai dans un point d'antiquite He braIque, appuye sur des temoignages que la bonne critique ne permet pas de revoquer en doute.' To this it may be added that there are some things, such as the order of dailyprayer, the settling of the text of the Old Testament, the establishment of the tradi tional interpretation of Scripture, etc., which must be assigned to the period immediately after the Cap. tivity, and which presuppose the existence of some institute such as the Great Synagogue, whether this be regarded as formally constituted by Ezra or as a voluntary association of priests and scribes (Zunz, Gottesdzenstlichen Vortriige der 7ilden, p. 33). 2dly, The part of this tradition which as cribes the formation of the Canon, before the Exile, to Moses and the prophets, is sufficiently supported by the testimony of Scripture itself. When Moses had finished the writing of the Law, he delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, and unto the elders of Israel' (Deut. xxxi. 9) ; and the book was then taken and put in the side of the ark, in the most holy place (ver. 26). Towards the close of
the book of Joshua, it is said that he wrote these words in the book of the law of God ;' which Le Clerc, with considerable probability, explains as meaning that he agglutinated the membrane on which his words were written to the volume of Moses which had been deposited in the side of the ark (Comment. in loc.) At a later period we. find that Samuel, when he had told the people the manner (vDtvn the publiczem) of the kingdom, wrote it in the book (1DDri), and laid it up before the Lord (I Sam. x. 25). Hilkiah, at a still later date, is said to 'have found the book of the Law in the House of the Lord' (2 Kings xxii. 8). Isaiah, in calling attention to his own prophecies, says, ` Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and read : no one of these shall fail' (xxxiv. 16) ; a passage on which Gesenius says (Comment. i. 921), The poet seems to have before his mind the placing of his oracle in a collection of oracles and sacred writings, whereby future generations might judge of the truth of his predictions.' In the writ ings of Jeremiah we find frequent allusion to the earlier books, especially the Pentateuch ; in op position to the false prophets, he sustains himself by an appeal to the prophets that were before him (xxviii. 8) ; and he represents himself as a link in the chain of true prophets whose words had come to pass (vii. 25, xi. 8, xxvi. 4-6 ; see Kueper, 7erenzzas libb. sac. atque vindex, iS37 ; Koenig, A ltestament. Studien, 2ter Th.) The author of Ecclesiastes refers (xii. 10-12) to his own work as destined to form part of a great whole of sacred writings, which he distinguishes from the many books' of ordinary human literature (See Hengstenberg and Ginsburg, in loc.) And Daniel informs us, that he understood, by the books, the number of the years of the captivity' (ix. 2) ; an expression which seems to describe the sacred Canon so far as it then was complete (Gesenius, Lex. He& in v. 1DID). From these notices we may gather—that such books as were sanctioned by the authority of Moses and the prophets (whose busi ness 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) were acknowledged by the Jews before the Exile as of Divine authority ; that, in all pro bability, an authentic Copy was in every case laid up in the sanctuary, and placed under the care of the priests* (Joseph. Antig. 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. idly, It is natural to suppose that, on the return of the people from their exile, they would desider ate 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 Le vites 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 false 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 Temple also was now bereft of its sacred treasures (Joseph. De Bell. Yud. vi. 6 ; Tract. Rabbin. .7.wta. ed. Sheringham, p. 102, sq.) During the exile, and the troublous times preceding it, several prophets had committee their oracles to writing, and these required to be added to the Canon ; and the ma jority of the people having lost acquaintance with the Hebrew, a translation of their sacred books had become necessary. All this conspired to ren der it imperative that some competent authority should, at the time of the second temple, form and fix the code of sacred truth. 4thly, The time of Ezra and Nehemiah was the latest at which this could be done. As the duty to be performed was not merely that of determining the genuineness of certain books, but 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 Hag gai, Zechariah, and Malachi ; but with that age expired the line of prophets which God had ap pointed '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 (comp. Joseph. Cont. Apion. i. 8 ; t Mace. iv. 46 ; ix. 27 ; xiv. 41 ; Hieronym. ad yes. xlix. 21 ; Vitringa, Sac. lib. vi. cap. 6, 7 ; Havemick, Einleit. i. 1. 27 ; Hengstenberg, Beitrage stir Einleit. ins A. T. i. s. 245). As Ezra and his contemporaries 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. 5th/y, That it was fixed at that time appears from the fact, that all subse quent references to the sacred writings presuppose the existence of the complete Canon ;, as well as from the fact, that of no one among the Apocry phal 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 re spects sufficiently high (e. g., Ecclus. xxxiii. 16-18 ; 1. 23). 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 anything in, the sacred books. This plainly shews 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. 6th/y, Those who refuse to accept this date as that of the closing of the Old Testament Canon, are unable to fix on any date later than the time of the Maccabees. But it may be safely affirmed that no book, issued for the first time during the interval between the death of Malachi and the time of the Maccabees, could have been received by the Jewish people as divine ; and this for two reasons—(I) That no wilt ing was accepted as divine which was not the pro duction of or authorized by a a 7rporp7)77, man enjoying divine inspiration, whereby he was fitted to become the medium of communication be tween God and the people; and (2) That no prophet appeared in Israel after the death of Malachi ; for both of which assertions we have the testimony of Josephus (Cont. Ap. i. 8) confirmed by that of Philo, who throughout uses the term irpoOrns as the pro per designation of the authors of those books which he cites as holy, and to whom he ascribes all the writings he cites as such (Hornemann, Obss. ad doctr. de Capone V. T.); by that of the son of Sirach, who speaks of the existence of prophets in his nation as a privilege of the past (xlix. to) ; and by that of the passage above cited from the first book of Maccabees.