Prophets.— We may then sum up by saying that the Law or Pentateuch was first in Israel, by unanimous consent, by universal preference, and by hundreds of years. At a long remove i came the Prophets in two ranks, the former (historic) being Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the latter Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve, but all attained (in some form, not by any means exactly their present form) an undisputed place as authoritative perhaps as early as 200 a. c., possibly even earlier, though there is some divergence of opinion, K. Marti holding that the prophetic canon was still open to the days of Hillel the Old (75 a.c.-10 A.D.). That Daniel failed to find place among the prophets has been thought to show that the list was closed before 165 D.C., the supposed date of his visions; but this date is uncertain; there are perhaps much later elements in Daniel, which descend far down into the Roman period, ac cording to the trenchant analysis of Eduard Hertlein. In fact, there is no exact date for the canonization of the prophets, such as is appar ently found in the case of the Law; the feeling that the list was closed arose gradually and most probably not for a whole generation or more did it become general and accepted; and it was doubtless felt long after to be perfectly legiti mate to add to a prophet's Book in a prophet's spirit and to modify it otherwise more or less profoundly. Hence the Prophets are found to have been interpolated more or less extensively long after the last of the name was enrolled in the canon. But insensibly the sacred awe spread itself deeper over the whole prophetic text, and all such tamperings, gradually grown slighter and rarer, now ceased altogether; and this reverence extended itself finally to the very letters and pointings of Holy Writ.
Hagiographa.— With respect to the third division, the "Writings,* all the features of the foregoing hesitancy appear strongly marked. The question of 22 or 24 may have been large ly a matter of convenience in rolls (Megil loth), as already stated, but not the admission or rejection of Esther, the Song and Qoheleth.
Against these as not "polluting the hands* many eloquent voices were raised. Nay more among the Later Prophets even Ezekiel had not quite escaped opposition; as contradicting the Law, some would have put his Book away, but Hananiah ben. Hezekiah ben Garon was its successful champion, "spending * three hundred jars of oil.* So, too, some opposed
of the Song of Songs was questioned and again it was Aqiba that rose up in defense, declaring (Call Writings holy but the Song the holiest)); "the whole world is not worth the day when the Song was given to Israel)); °he who sings from the Song in the wiue-houses and makes it profane will not have share in the world to come.* His great authority seems to have rescued the Song from the Chizunim (Apocrypha) to which some would have consigned it.
Preacher.— Most earnest of all was the strife about Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), which Shammai's school defended against Hiller& Said R. Judah, "the Song defiles, Qoheleth is debated)); and Aqiba, "if there was any de bate, it was about Qoheleth only)); and Rabbi Simon ben Menasya, "the Song defiles, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not Qoheleth, being produced only by the wisdom of Solo mon.* Gratz holds that the decision as to the canon dates from 90 A.D., but as late as 150 A.D. Simon declared Qoheleth doubtful.
Many Scribes.— However, all such objec tions were finally overruled, though the so called additions of Daniel and Esther, as well as the Baruch Epistle added to Jeremiah, were thrust aside. The critical movement made it self felt mainly in the exclusion of the nu merous Chinuzim that had begun to spring up thick and to throng the entrance to the Canon. Qoheleth himself complains (xii, 12), "of making many books there is no end.* Formerly, every writing was considered pro phetic,t the phrase Esther wrote)) (Es. ix, 29) was held to prove that she was a prophetess; if this seems strange, let us remember that, in comment on Ps. 5, the Rabbis reckoned the number of prophets at six (or twelve) hun dred thousand, only prophecies significant for the future being published. Such views are, of course, centuries later, but they magni fy and distort the real facts, that the literary production of Israel proceeded almost wholly: from the prophets and was hence religious in aim though often historic in content, and that there arose thence a strong presumption that every writing, as the work of a prophet, was holy. Nor must we fancy that the list of sa cred writers was no longer than the list of sacred writings, since, as we have seen and shall see again, all such are highly composite, the results of revision and rerevision, so that each may very well embody on the average the labors of a dozen or even a score of scribes. The whole body of Hebrew litera ture may be the issue of hundreds or even thousands of pens. In this connection it is good to bear in mind that the scribe of that elder day was a person of rare dignity and accomplishment; even in the very advanced civilization of Egypt he figures very important ly in mural decorations, and it is not strange that he should have been esteemed still more, particularly among the Hebrews, where his culture was less generally known and hence more mysterious.