The order of the Prophets and the Hagiographa prescribed in the Talmud, represents neither the original order nor the finally prevailing ar rangement. In earlier times each book was copied on a separate roll, and the synagogue reader had a eertain freedom of choice in his selections. This apparently was still the case at the end of the First Century A.D. (Luke iv. 17; Baba bathra 13b.). It was when larger volumes were produced and a fixed order of the haphtaras, or sections read in the synagogue, had been estab lished, that the question as to the proper succes sion arose. Chronological and practical con siderations then naturally led to conflicting re sults. It is probable that the Greek version has preserved the earliest attempts to arrange the prophetic boots chronologically—viz., the Twelve. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Regard for the elect of the e mtexts upon the mind of the reader may, as Baba bathra 14a. suggests, have been respousil le for the order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, The Twelve. Isaiah. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve was the order finally adopted. The order of the haphtaras probably was not determined until after the prophetic canon had been reduced to its present form, leaving out Daniel. When Ruth was removed from Judges and Lamentations from Jeremiah, the former seems to have been made at first an intro thiction to the latter, and the latter was given its chronological place between the Solonionic writings and Daniel. Subsequently. both were united with the antilegomena to form the Five Rolls (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Eccle siastes, Esther) read at certain festivals. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamenta tions. Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehe miah. and Chronicles was the order ultimately prevailing.
The threefold canon of the Second Century A.D. reveals the gradual growth of the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Elohistie Covenant Code (Ex. xx. 24—xxiii. 33) probably pro claimed by the priesthood of some great Ephrae mitic sanctuary in the name of Moses, naturally was looked upon with reverence. Still greater authority, however, did the Deuteronomic Code enjoy. This law was likewise ascribed to Noses and enjoined upon Judah in B.C. 1120. At the time even prophets like Jeremiah declared it to be a forgery (Jer. viii. 8). But during the Chaldean and Greek periods, it grew in impor tance as the common law of the people. The earlier codes and narratives, together with the annals of the kings, were subjected to a redaction in the spirit of this Deuteronomic law. But as the theocracy developed, the interest settled on the cult; and numerous regulations concerning sacrifices, rites, and taboos, legends, myths, and genealogical traditions were added. These priestly additions are regarded by many scholA ars as a separate work compiled in Babylonia, 1 brought. to Palestine by Ezra and proclaimed at a great assembly. described in Nell. viii.—x., in' B.C. 444. It is possible, however, that they grew up at the sanctuary in Jerusalem, and that Ezra wrote in one book all the material recognized as Mosaic, leaving out Joshua and Kings. to incul cate obedience to the law. Additions were made to the law as late as in the Second Century B.C. These scribes began to feel a certain reluctance to write the further developments of the law.
lt is no doubt the Maecabean period that gave to the law that central position in the religious life of Israel which it has in the Psalms.
This national uprising also lifted the prophetic writings to new importance. The exile which re alized the gloomy forebodings of the earlier prophets enhaneed their reputation as sooth sayers. But their words were understood as ex hortation to obedience to the law, and conse quently could not be given the same authority with with the law itself. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were plainly written with a didactic pur pose to show the dangers of disobedience to the law. Hence they were regarded as 'prophetic' books. The publication of Daniel, in B.C. 165, re vived the interest in prophecy, and inspired not only imitators, but also editors, to whom we owe the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and The Twelve, in their present form. Apocalyptic versions furnished enthusiasm for the Messi anic movements. Disenchanted, Judaism, to save its life, fell back upon the Law and the earlier Prophets.
The Psalter was in the main a product of the Hasmontean Age, whatever earlier elements may have found their way into its different collec tions. As it was ascribed to David and numerous hymns were supposed to refer to his greater Son, its influence in an era of Messianic hopes was by no means limited to the temple-service. As sociated with it as early as in the middle of the First Century B.C. were the writings ascribed to Solomon. The attacks upon Canticles and Ec clesiastes. with a view to haying them relegated to the limbo of the gennzini, as unfit for public use, were frustrated. We owe the preservation of the precious love-lyries to an utterly impossible allegorical interpretation; and judicious inter polations saved from destruction the remnants of a remarkable philosophy of disenchantment. The survival of Esther is probably due partly to the tenacity of the old ancestral cult, partly to the vindictive spirit prevalent in the people at the time when its canonicity was discussed.
There is no record of any book having ever been added by a Jewish assembly to a previously existing canon. The history of the canon is a his tory of the criticism of the canon. Certain books of a religious nature were held in high honor. Their contents suggested a divine origin. An cient Hebrew critics inquired whether the char acter of some of these books justified the tradi tional estimate, and in many instances were forced by their doctrine of inspiration to answer in the negative. Some of them were successfully impugned as works not possessing a sanctity rendering a ceremonial washing necessary after contact with them. Others were not eliminated, though strong efforts were made to withdraw them from public use. Among those that had been regarded as sacred, but had been rejected. some continued in certain circles to be quoted as Scripture, as lien Sira in Baba Kama 92 et al., or read in certain synagogues, as Baruch in the time of Origen (Euseb. //ist. vi. 25), or copied in the Bible, as Enoch by the Jews of Ethiopia. Among the Hellenistic Jews. a large number of these works were preserved and quoted as Scripture.