7. Division of the Canon into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (rrl ntalrz, b+N+m). This division is very ancient ; it appears in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, in the New Testament, in Philo, in Joseplius, and in the Talmud (Surenhusii KaraXA. p. 49). Re specting the principle on which the division has been made, there is a considerable difference of opinion. All are agreed that the first part, the Law, which embraces the Pentateuch, was so named from its containing the national laws and regulations. The second embraces the rest of the historical books, with the exception of Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles ; and the writings of the prophets, except Daniel and Lamentations. It is probable that it received its name a parte potion', the majority of the books it contains being the production of men who were professionally prophets. That this criterion, how ever, determined the omission or insertion of a book in this second division, as asserted by Heng stenberg (.4u/hen/. des Daniel, p. 27), and by Havemick (Einl. I. sec. t 1), cannot be admitted ; for on the one hand, we find inserted in this divi sion the book of Amos, who was `neither a pro phet nor a prophet's son ;' and on the other, there is omitted from it the Book of Lamentations, which was unquestionably the production of a prophet. The insertion of this book in the last rather than in the second division, has its source probably in some liturgical reason, in order that it might stand beside the Psalms and other lyric poetry of the sacred books. It is more difficult to account for the insertion of the book of Daniel in the third rather than in the second division ; and much stress has been laid on this circumstance, as affording evidence unfavoural-le to the canonical claims of this book. But if the book of Daniel be a forgery, why, if inserted at all, was it not inserted in the division to which it claims to be long? The answer is, that the second division was then closed, and could not be reopened so as to admit the new corner. But in what sense was it closed ? Had some competent authority. are.
vious to the appearance of the Book of Daniel, so fixed that a certain number of prophetical books were possessed by the Jewish nation, that no other ever could be possessed by them. If so, how came the Book of Daniel to be inserted at all among the sacred books, seeing, on this supposi tion, no one could regard it in any other light than as spurious ? But is it certain that the Book of Daniel occupied from the first the place it now occupies in the third, and not in the second divi sion ? The only evidence for this assertion is, that such was the place of the book in the fifth century of the Christian era, as we learn from Jerome and the Talmud ; from which it is inferred that such was always its place. But is this inference legiti mate ? Is it not possible that for some reason of a mystical or controversial kind, to both of which sources of influence the Jews during the early ages of Christianity were much exposed, they may have altered the position of Daniel from the second to the third division ? What renders this probable is, that the Talmudists stand alone in this arrange ment. Josephus, Siracides, Philo, the New Testa ment, all refer to the Hagiographa in such a way as to induce the belief that it comprised only the poetical portions of the Old Testament — the psalms, hymns, and songs ; whilst in all the cata logues of the Old Testament writers given by the early Fathers, up to the time of Jerome, Daniel is ranked among the prophets, generally in the posi tion he occupies in our common version. In the version of the LXX. also, he is ranked with the prophets next to Ezekiel. Nor does Jerome agree with the Talmud in all respects, nor does one class of Jewish rabbis agree with another in the ar rangement of the sacred books. All this shews that no such fixed and unalterable arrangement of the sacred books, as that which is commonly assumed, existed anterior to the fifth century of the Christian era, and proves very distinctly that the place then assigned to Daniel by the Talmud ists was ,sat the place he had during the preceding period, or originally occupied. The very founda tion of the objection being thus sapped, the whole superstructure necessarily falls to the ground. The Book of Daniel being accepted as the authentic production of that prophet, was, from the first, ranked with the other prophetical writings, and all that has been built upon its alleged exclusion from among the prophets is the mere 'baseless fabric of a vision.' As respects the name given to the thin/ division, the most probable account of it is, that, at first, it was fuller—viz., the other writings,' as distinguished from the Law and the Prophets (comp. the expression ret etXXe pepsin, used by the Son of Sirach, Ecclus. Prol.) ; and that in process of time it was abbreviated into 'the writings.' This part is commonly cited under the title Hagiographa.
S. Subsequent History of the Old Testament Canon, as established in the time of Ezra, has remained unaltered to the present day. Some, indeed, have supposed that, because the Greek version of the Old Testament contains some books not in the Hebrew, there must have been a double canon, a Palestinian and an Egyptian (Semler, Apparat. ad liberaliorem V 7: interpret. sec. 9, to ; Corrodi, der Gesch. des disch. u. Christlich. 'Canons, s. 155484; Augusti, Einleit. ins. A. T. s. 79); but this notion has been completely disproved by Eichhorn (Einleit. bd. i. s. 23), Havernick (Einl. i. sec. 16), 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 designate it by the threefold division already considered. 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.* In the New Testa ment our Lord frequently refers to the Old Testa ment, under the title of The Scriptures,' or of The Law' (Matt. xxi. 42 ; xxii. 29 ; John X. 34, etc. etc.); and in one place he speaks of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms' (Luke xxiv. 44); by the third of these titles intending,
doubtless, to designate the Hagiographa, either after the Jewish custom of denoting a collection of books by the title of that with which it com menced ; or, as Hfivernick suggests, using the term IfraNaol as a general designation of these books, because of the larger comparative amount of lyric poetry contained in them (Einl. sec. t4) ; or, what is most probable, naming this because it was that one of the class which principally testified concerning the Christ. As an evidence of the extent of the Old Testament Canon in the time of our Lord, may be cited Matt. xxiii. 35, and Luke xi. 51 ; where our Lord, by naming Abel and Zechariah, the former of whom is men tioned in Genesis, and the latter in 2 Chronicles. probably intends to indicate the first and the last examples of the shedding of the blood of the righteous according to the order of the books. Paul applies to the Old Testament the appellations The Holy Writings' (-ypcopai irytac, Rom. i. 2) ; the Sacred Letters' (tepa ypcfµnaTa, 2 Tins. iii. 15), and the Old Covenant' (f) vaXata, 2 Cor. iii. r4). Both our Lord and his Apostles ascribe divine authority to the ancient Canon (Matt. xv. 3 ; John x. 34-36 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; 2 Peter i. 19-21, etc.); and in the course of the New Testament, quotations are made from all the books of the Old except Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Canticles, Lamentations, and Ezekiel ; the omission of which may be accounted for on the simple principle that the writers had no occasion to quote from them. Philo attests the existence in his time of the lepet ypcipplara, describes them as comprising laws, oracles uttered by the prophets, hymns, and the other books by which knowledge and godliness may he increased and perfected (De Vita Contemplat. in Opp., torn. ii. p. 275, ed. Mangey) ; and quotations from or references to the most of the books are scattered through his writings. The evidence of Josephus is very im portant, for, besides general references to the sacred books, he gives a formal account of the Canon, as it was acknowledged by the Pharisees and the priesthood, of which he was a member in his day, ascribing five books, containing laws and an ac count of the origin of man, to Moses, thirteen to' the Prophets, and four, containing songs of praise to God and ethical precepts for men, to different writers, and affirming that the faith of the Jews in these books is such that they would for them suffer all tortures and death itself (Cont. Apion. i. 7, 8 ; Eichhorn, Eiszlest. i. sec. 50 ; Jahn, Introductio, p. so). It is true that the number thus specified only amounts to 22 ; but this deficiency is generally, and, we think, satisfactorily accounted for, by sup posing that Josephus classed Lamentations with Jeremiah, that he viewed Ezra and Nehemiah as one book (comp. Baba Bathra, IS, a; Sanedrin, 93, b), and that the twelve minor prophets were classed by him under one head (Stuart on the Canon, p. 245). It has been objected to this, that Josephus must on this supposition have ranked Job among the Prophets ; for as the Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes constitute the four which he places under the third head, it is only under the second that Job can find a place. But there seems no violence in the supposition that Job was so reckoned by Josephus ; for this book possesses a historical pretension as its fundamental characteristic, and with Josephus the prophets were primarily historians (rd Kar' cuirass rpaxGevTa crvveispatfrass, Cant. Ap. 1. c.) In accordance with this, it is noticeable that Josephus never quotes as scripture a passage which is not found in some one of these books. Melito, bishop of Sardis in the second century of the Christian era, gives, as the result of careful inquiry, the same books in the Old Testament Canon as we have now, with the exception of Nehemiah, Esther, and Lamenta tions ; the two first of which, however, he pro bably included in Ezra, and the last in Jeremiah (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 26 ; Eichhorn, Eiazl. i. sec. 52). The catalogues of Origen (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25), of Jerome (Prol. Galeat. in Opp. iii.), and of others of the fathers, give substantially the same list (Eichhorn, 1. c.; Augusti, Elul. sec. 54; Cosins, Scholastical Hist. of the Canon, ch. iii. vi.; Henderson, On Inspiration, 449). In the Talmudic Tract entitled Baba Baths-a, a catalogue of the books of the sacred Canon is given as fol lows :—Moses wrote his own book and the section Bileam and Job ; Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses in the Law ; Samuel wrote his book, and Judges and Ruth ; David the book of Psalms through (or under the lead of 'IT ten venerable elders, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthan, Asaph, and the sons of Korah ; Jeremiah wrote his book, the Books of Kings and Lamentations ; Hezekiali and his friends wrote the sign p"m,“+, viz., Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Coheleth ; the men of the Great Syna gogue wrote the sign )"`L'P, viz., Ezekiel, the twelve (minor prophets), Daniel, and the Megilloth Esther ; Ezra wrote his book, and the genealogies of the Books of Chronicles, down to himself . . Who brought down the rest of them (the Chroni cles)? Nehemiah the son of Checaliah' (see the original, quoted in Ginsburg's Ecclesiastes, p. 244). In another passage the order of the books is given thus :—The Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the minor prophets, of which Hosea is the first ; Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Coheleth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles (Ibid. p. 12 ; Eichhorn, Einleit. i. 130). They thus make out 24 books. It has been asserted that doubts existed among the Jews as to the Canonicity of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs ; but all that the passages cited from the Talmud in support of this shew, is, that in the school of Shammai, where unusual scrupulosity in such matters was affected, objections, arising out of sup posed difficulties and contradictions, had been started against these and other books, but that these were overruled by the concurrent decision of the 72 elders, and declared to be invalid (Gins burg, 1. c. p. 13-16). It thus appears that the Canon once fixed remained among the Jews un altered, and was the same as we now have. For the history of the Old Testament Canon in the Christian Church, see APOCRYPHA.