Encyclopaedia Biblica/Camphire-Canon

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Camphire-Canon
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

Contents

CAMPHIRE[edit]

("IS3; KYnpoc [BSAC] ; Cant. 1 14 [om. H], 4 13), the earlier spelling of ' camphor,' should be Hknn.V (as in R\') i.e., Lawsonia alba, Lamk. , a plant described by Tristram (NIIB 2,2,9 f) as still growing on the shores of the Dead Sea at Engedi (Cant. 1 14). According to Boissier (/'/. Orient, ^t^a), it is frequently cultivated in Egypt, Arabia Petrnsa, and Persia ; and it is probably indigenous to N. Africa, Arabia, Persia, and W. India (Bentham and Hooker, Gen. PL 1 782). The ' cluster ' ^ of Cant. 1 14 is that of the flowers.

Pesh. and Targ. have the .same word as _MT, with which Kvirpof also is identical : and the Syriac lexicographers st.^te that this rneans the hannd of the Arabs the plant from which they obtain the dye for the nails. The Oreek references to Ktnrpo-- will be found in Liddell and Scott, s.v.

N. M. \V. T. T.-n.

CANA OF GALILEE[edit]

(kana thc taXiAaiac [Ti. WH]: I'csh. kiiina) appears only in thc Fourth Gos{)el, as thc scene of Christ's first miracle (John 2 i n 446), and of his healing of the nobleman's son lying sick at Capernaum (4 46-54), and as the home of Nathanael (21 2). The only evidence as to its position is that it lay higher than Capernaum ; Jesus went down from it to the hotter (2 12).

^ 73PK, which elsewhere means a cluster of grapes possibly of dates I'n Cant. 7 7/ [8/]. See liudde.

Tradition and present opinion are divided between the modern Kcfr Kennil, a hamltt almost 3J m. NE. of Nazareth, ,with a fine sjiring, and Khirbct Kana or Kanat el-{jelil, on a promontory of Gebcl Kana over the plain of Buttauf, alwut 8 m. N. of Nazareth, with ruins, tombs, cisterns, and a [xxjL

The data of Antoninus Placentinus, 570 A. D. (///. 4), suit Ke/r Kenna, at which the media:val writers Phoca.s, John of Wiirz- burg, and QuaresmiuSjplace it ; so also in modern times (Juerin. De Saulcy, Porter, Tristram, and Conder. Kuscbius and Jerome ((AS) identify it with Kanah in Aslier (Josh. I'.i 28); to them, therefore, it would not have been at Kefr Kenna, but may have been K3nat el-Gelll. The data of Thcudosius (530 a.d.) suit Kfinat el-Gelll, and so in the Middle .Ages do those of Saewulf, Hrocardus, Ketellus, Marinus .Sanutus ; and others ad- here. Robinson, who was the first modern to revive thc claims of Kanat el-Gelll, descril)es the position, details the traditional evidence, and points out that the name is the equivalent of the NT one. while Kenna, with the double , is not (UK 3 204-8). He has been followed by Ritter, Renan, Thomson, Stanley, and Socin.

The name K.anat el-Gelll is not above suspicion ; it may be the creation of an early ecclesiastical tradition, just as Robinson himself points out that an attempt has been made by the native Christians in the present century to transfer it to Kefr Kenna. On the other hand, Josephus resided for a time in a village of Galilee, called Cana (/V/. 16); if this be the same as his residence m the plain of Asochis (/</. 41), he means Kanat el-(5elil.

Conder {PKF Mem. \ 288) suggests another site for Cana in ' Ain Kana, on the road between Reineh and Tabor.

G. A. .S.

CANAAN, CANAANITE[edit]

(jy33, ^:V33, xanaan, XANANAlOl)

1. Phoenician usage[edit]

Coins from Laodicea of the time of Aiitiochus iV. and his successors, liear , , , . . n i-

1 ^^"^ '-'^"'^ l>"=^ =** '*^^**- ' ^ ^'^'^^^^' 

' a metropolis in Canaan ' probably the Phoenician town whose position is indicated by the ruins of Umm-el-'Awamid, 8. of Tyre. Well known, too, is the statement (wrongly assigned to Hecat;vus of Miletus) that Phoenicia w.as formerly called x"^ (Herodian, irepi /J.ovrjpovs X^^ews, 19; similarly Steph. Byz. x""- oi'^ws 7; 4'oiviKT] (AraXetro). In accordance with this, Philo of Byblos (2, 27) calls the eponym of the Ph(i'nicians ' Chna, who was later called Phoinix ' (d5eX</>6j x*** "^^^ irpwTov fx.fTOPofxaaGd'Tos <polviKos), and in Bekker, Anecd. iii. 1181, 6 X"^^ (g*^"- ^^ X"^) '^ identified with Agenor (the father of Phcu-nix), ' whence the Phoenicians also are called Ochna' [bBiv Kal 17 'i'oiviKT] dxi'a \^yfTai). Here we have the shorter form A'<:' (;':3 ; cp Olsh., Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr., 2i^a), so often met with in the Amarna tablets under the form Kinahhi, side by side with the fuller form Kinahiii, probably with the article prefixed (v;2n) as in Egyptian inscriptions (see below, 6).

2. OT Usage[edit]

As a geographical term Canaan shares the indefiniteness that characterises much of the O I", and indeed of all .ancient, geographical nomenclature.

^ In its widest sense the term seems to have been used to denote all of what may be roughly classed as Southern Syria, from the foot of .\It. Hcrmon to the lower end of the Dead Sea, including territory l)oth to the E. and to the W. of the Jordan clear to the Mediterranean. Such appears to lie the case in the Book of Joshua (11 3). More commonly, however, it is restricted to the lands lying to the W. of the Jordan that is Jud.i!a, Phtrnicia, and Philistia proix;r. As Judaj.a, however, became more sharply marketl off from Pha-nicia and Philistia, it is natural that to Hebrew writers Canaan should have come to mean the latter districts more particularly. So in Is. 23 n the term is applied to Phoenicia and perhaps to the entire coast, and in Zeph.25 to Philistia. As an ethnic term, C.anaanite is similarly applied to the inhabitants of the W. Jordan district in general, while at times as in Nu. 13 29 the seats of the Canaanites are more specifically limited to the sea-coast and the Jordan valley.

1 This section is by the author of the article Phcenicia,

Corresponding to the identification of Canaan with Phoenicia, which is also in accord with the usage of the term Kinaljhi in the Aniarna Tablets ( lo below), the term Caniuinite comes to be associated with the mercantile activity of Phtrnicia, and in consequence appxjars occasionally as, e.g., in Hos. 128 Is. 2:3 8 in the general sense of merchant. According to Targ. and many moderns, it has this sense likewise in Zech. l-lai ; Wellhausen and Nowack would add, emending in accordance with C"-^. Zech. 11 7 II.

3. Geographical inference.[edit]

The indefiniteness and the shifting character of both the geographical and the ethnical terms point to political changes in which were involved the people to whom the term Canaanites was originally applied : indeed, the indefiniteness is the direct outcome of these changes. .Analogy warrants us in assuming as the starting-point a more limited district, and that with the extension of Canaanitish conquest or settlement the term Iwcame correspondingly enlarged, though it is not necessary to assume that the correspondence between actual settlement or possession and the geographical application of the term Canaan must have lx?en complete. 'Y\\ii pn-d&ini nance of Canaanites in important sections of the W. Jordan lands would have sufficed for imposing their name on the whole district.

4. Egyptian evidence[edit]

The Egyptian inscriptions come to our aid in enabling us to determine where to seek for the origin of the term. .. In the accounts of their Asiatic campaigns, which begin about i8oo B.C., the rulers . ^(. ^j^^ ^-^j^ restrict the name Ka-n-'-nj to the low strip of coast that forms the eastern limit of the Mediterranean ; and, since it is only the northern section of this coast that affords a sufficiency of suitable harbours for extensive settlements, it is more particularly to the Phoenician coast-land that the name is apjilied. From the Phoenician coast it naturally came to be extended by the Egyptians to the entire coast down to the Egyptian frontier, the absence of any decided break in the continuity of the coast leading to the extension of the nomenclature, as it led in later times to the shifting character of the southern boundary of Phoenicia proper.

5. History of name[edit]

The name of Philistia for the southern part of the coast does not occur in the Egyptian inscriptions. It was from the coast, therefore, that the name was ex- teniled to include the high lands adjacent to it ; and it is interesting to note that, whilst the geo- graphical term never lost its restricted application to the coast strip, the ethnographical term Ka-n-'-ne-mau i.e., Canaanites embraces for the ICgyptians, accord- ing to Miiller [As. u. Eur. 206 / ), the population of all of Western Syria, precisely as in biblical sources. The combination of the Egyptian with the OT notices seems to justify the conclusion that the coast population sent into the interior offshoots which made permanent settlements there. In this way both Canaan and the Canaanites acquired the wide significance that has been noted, whilst the subsequent tendency towards restricting the name to the sea-coast is an unconscious return to the earlier and more exact nomenclature.

6. Etymology[edit]

The etymology of the term Canaan bears out these historical and geographical conclusions. In the Egyptian inscriptions (cp also aVjove, i) the word appears with the article ' The Canaan ' which points to its being a descriptive term ; and, even though we agree with Moore {/'A OS, 1890, pp. Ixvii-lxx) that the testimony is incomplete, the, use of the stem yjj in Hebrew in the sense of ' to be humbled ' suggests the possibility that this stem may, !n some other Semitic dialect, have been used to convey the idea of ' low,' even though that may not have been the original sense of the stem. If we keep in view the prefixing of the article to the term, and its original application to a strip of land between the sea and the mountains, no more appropriate designation than ' the lowland ' can well be imagined ; and this explanation of Canaan, though not unanimously accepted, is at any rate provisionally tenable. ' Certainly it seems to be an ancient one ; for when it is said that the Canaanite is the one who dwells by the sea and along the side of the Jordan (Nu. I329) -.*., in the two 'lowland' districts of Palestine the very artificiality of the indicated limits suggests that it was the etymology of the word which led the writer to such a view in contradiction to so many other passages where Canaanites are spoken of as occupying mountainous districts also.

7. Amorites in OT[edit]

By the side of the term Canaiin, however, there is in the OT another which is used, especially by the Elohist,

^'^ Cover precisely the same population 

"Sot namely, 'the land of the Amorite.' It is the merit of Steinthal {/.. f. Volkcr- psychologie, 12 267) and of E. Meyer (ZATIVI 123 ['81]) to have definitely demonstrated this important point. See Amokitics. At the same time, it is to be borne in mind that when the coast -land is speci- fically referred to, the term Amorite is not used, but, as already pointed out, either Canaan for the whole coast or Canaan for the northern and Philistia for the southern. Whether the Yahwist (J) is equally con- sistent, as Meyer claims, in using 'Canaanite' for the pre-Israelitish population of the W. Jordan lands is open to question. The theory cannot be carried through without a certain amount of arbitrariness in the distribu- tion of the verses belonging to J and E respectively (see M'Curdy's note, Nisf. Proph. Mon. I406-S).

8 In Egyptian[edit]

Moreover, the cimeiform documents and Egyptian inscriptions furnish an explanation for the double nomenclature that places the facts in somewhat different light. From the Egyptian side it is clear that the term ' Amoritic ' land was limited to the mountain district lying to the east of the Phojnician coast-land but extending across the Jordan to the Orontes (WMM, As. u. Eur. 217^). The southern and the eastern boundaries are not sharply defined. The former is placed by Mtiller, on the basis of Egyptian inscriptions, at the entrance of the plain the so-called Beka l)etween the Lebanon and the Antilibanus, and, whilst the Orontes might seem to furnish a natural eastern boundary, it would appear that the early Egyptian concjuerors extended the limits still farther to the east. At the time of Thotmes III. the Hittites had not yet made their appearance. Later, in the days of Rameses III., when the Hittites form the most serious menace to Egyptian supremacy in Western Asia, the Orontes l)ecomes a more definite boundary of the ' Amoritic ' district, while as the Hittites encroach upon the territory of the Amorites, the term Hittite begins to displace ' .\morite ' for the northern mountain district of Palestine.

9. In early Assyrian[edit]

This process is completed about 1000 B.C. .At that time, however, the term ' Amoritic ' had already been extended to the southern range of Palestine not by the Egyptians, but by the Babylonians and Assyrians. It is in cuneiform docu- ments of (about) the twelfth century that we first come across the term ' land of A-mur-ri' (as the signs must be read, instead of A-har-ri, as was formerly supposed). Nebuchadrezzar I., king of Babylonia, whose date is fixed at circa 1127, calls himself the conqueror of the ' land of .Amor ' ; and Tiglath-pileser I. of Assyria, whose reign coincides in part with that of Nebuchadrezzar, names the great sea of the Amoritic land as the western lx)undary to his conquests.

Long ere this, however, as the use of the Babylonian language in the Amarna tablets {circa 1400 B.C. ) shows,

1 [So G. A. .Smith, //C 5, whilst BDB .and Buhl (Pal. 42) decline a decision. Moore and E. Meyer (O'.-J 176) reject the derivation from yjp, 'humilis esse,' which is the property of the uncritical Augustme (Knarrat. in Ps. IO47). .Augustine says (/'xfios. Ep. ad Rom.') that the pea.sants near Hippo, when asked as to their origin, answered in Punic, Chartaiti, id est, Chananaeos esse. ]

Babylonia had come into close contact with the I'hiu- nician coast and the interior. As a niatter of fact, one of the earliest rulers in Southern Babylonia of w lion* we have any record, Sargon I. , whose date is fixe<l at 3800 B.c:. , is declared, in a tablet presenting a curious mixture of 'omens' and historical tradition, to have jx-netratefl Ijeyond the western sea (i.e., the Me<literranean), and there arc indications that he actually set foot on the island of C yprus (see Max Ohnefalsch-Kichter, Kypros, 83). Sargon s|eaks only in a general way of having proceede<l to the ' west ' land ; but the ideographic designation in the text in cjuestion Maktu is the same as that which the later Assyrian rulers employ for the territory which includes Canaan in the projx-r s-nse. The same compound ideogram is the ordinary term for ' west ' in the legal literature of Habylonia ; and the suggestion that it is also to be read Anmrru Mar bemg a playful acrologisni of Amur and Ti;, indicat- ing perhaps direction is plausible. In any case there apjxjars to he. some close connection between Mak Tl; and the name Amurru.' The text in which Sargon's western contiuests are spoken of is probably of a very much later date than Sargon himself ; but the value of the tradition, and at all events of the geographical nomenclature, is unimpaired by this fact.

10. In Amarna tablets.[edit]

The Amarna tablets, which constitute the remains of Egyptian archives of the fifteenth century B.C. , confirm the great anticjuity of the term Amtirru. In the letters to their royal master written by otiicers under Egyptian suzerainty, the term is of not infrecjuent occurrence, and an ex- amination of the passages proves that it is applied, just like the corresponding term in the Egyptian inscrip- tions, to the mountainous district lying immediately to the east of the coast-land of ' Canaan ' in the Egyptian sense /. <r. , of Northern Palestine. The eastern limits are again not sharply defined. In the period to which the Amarna tablets l)elong, the Hittites are lieginning to extend their settlements l)eyond the Orontes ; but lietween ' Hatti ' and 'Amor' land there was a district known as Xiihassi, which reached to Damascus. This may, roughly, l>e regarded as the eastern frontier of the ' Anmrru ' district. The agreement Ixitween the Egyptian and the .Amarna nomenclature extends to the term 'Canaan,' which, under the form Kinahhi, is limited in the Amarna tablets to the northern ' lowland ' or sea-coast. It was quite natural that, from being applied to the interior district of Northern Palestine, the term 'Amurru' should come to Ije employed for the interior of Southern Palestineas well, just as the I-",gyptians extended the application of ' Canaan ' to the entire Palestinian coast.

11. In later Assyrian.[edit]

When the Assyrian conquerors in the ninth century lx.-gin to threaten the Hebrew kingdoms, they include the dominion of the latter under the land of ' Amurru. ' The term ' land of Ismel ' occurs only once in Assyrian inscriptions, and even this passage is not beyond dispute. .Again, since the '.Anmrru' district in the pro[3er sense was the first territory that the earliest Babylonian and .Assyrian con(|uerors set foot in after crossing the Orontes, it also happens that the term t)ecomes for them the most general designation for the ' W'est. ' On the other hand, it must be noted that this development in the use of ' Amurru ' is directly due to Babylonian intluence. and forms part of the heritage lxH|uealhed to later limes by the period of early Babylonian control over the land l)'ing to the west of the Orontes.

1 For a discu.s.sion of the .subject and a somewhat different view, see .Schr.ider, 'Das land .Amurru," SBAW Dec. 20, 1894. Cp also Wi. CI 1 ('95), 51-54. An analogy for thus indicating westward ' by a reference to a land lying to the west is to be fiaund in the OT designation oi Negeb for "^ south."

12 Land of Hittites[edit]

At the comparatively late period when .Assyria, "^"""P'^K ^^^ place formerly held by Baby- 'o"'-"^' Ijegins her cont|uests, the '.Amoritic' power in Northern Palestine was seriously threatened by the IIilTlTF.S (</.7'. ). In extending their sttlemcnts Ix-yoiul the Orontes they encroachi-d u|X)n " .Amoritic " territory. The distinct traces of this west- ward movement of the Hittites are to le found in the Amarna tablets already mentioned. Indeed, the move- ment forms the key to the [)olitical situation of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C. The .Assyrian coiu|uerors accordingly, when procce<ling to the W'est, invariably began their campaigns by a passage of arms with the Hittites. This, taken together with the waning strength of the 'Amorites,' led to another change in the geo- graphical nomenclature the extension of the term Hatti or Hittite to Northern Palestine as far as the Mediterranean, so as to include, therefore, Phci-nicia pro[>er. For Southern Palestine the older designation '.Amurru' held its own. and the differentiation thus resulting between 'Hatti' and 'Amurru' assumed a practical significance which was quite independent of the original application of the two terms.

13. Geographical distinctions[edit]

It will h.ave Iteconie evident from this sketch of the early fortunes of Palestine that care nmst l^e exercised p , in draw ing conclusions from geographical nomenclature. The Hittite power does not extend to the sea-coast Ixjcause of the

^^^^^.^^.^^ ^f 1,,^. geographical term, and 

so the ethnographical application of Amoritic cannot Ije determined from the geographical usage.

14. Amorites.[edit]

That ' .Amur ' originally designated a particular trilw, or possibly a group of trilx^s, settled chiefly in the .Anti- . .. libanus district, is one of the few

^^^^^ ^^ ^ deduced from the early ICgyptian monuments. These .Amorites of Northern Palestine are frec|ucntly represented by the Egy])tians as a blond j^eople with a cast of countenance that marks them off from what are generally considered to be Semitic traits (see Petrie, Racial Types from the Egyptian Monuments). It would be hazardous, in the face (jf our imperfect knowletlge, to enter upon further specula- tions as to their origin.

15. Heterogeneous population[edit]

There are go<xi reasons for believing that already at a very early ]X"riod the population of Palestine presented a mixture of races, and that through intermarriage the dividing lines between these races became fainter in the cour.se of lime, until all sharp distinctions were obliterated. Hence the promi.scuous grouping so characteristic in the Hexa- leuch of Amorites with Perizzites, Hivites, Hittites, etc., of northern and southern Palestinians, without any regard to ethnic distinctions. The problem of differentia- ting Ix-'tween these various groups whom the Hebrews encountered u])on settling in Palestine is at present incapable of solution. Future discoveries will prob- ably emphasise still more strongly the heterogeneous character of the tribes.

16. Their absorption.[edit]

Their unorganised condition made them a comparatively easy prey conquerors and yet difficult to ex- terminate. The early Babylonian and ligyptian conquerors were content with a general recognition of their supremacy on the part of the inhabitants. Native Palestinians were retained in con- trol, and all that was demandt>d was a payment of tribute from time to time. When, however, the Hebrews jiermanently settkxl in Southern Palestine, alxjut 1200 B.C., the early inhabitants lost much of their political prestige. In the course of time, also, ntany of the groups were reduced to a state of subjection, varying in degree, but in all cases, except in the case of the inhabitants of the co.ast, sufficiently conjplete to prevent any renewal of former conditions. With the successful establishment of the b' ne Israel in the lands to the west of the Jordan, the history of the pre-Israelitish inhabit- ants comes to an end in Southern Palestine, e.xcept so far as the infiuence of these Canaanitish groups upon the religious life of the Israelites is involvctl. The Hittites in the north, of course, survixe ; but the other groups, including the Amorites, gradually disappear, either sinking into a position of utter insignificance or aniali;amating witli the Hebrew tribes(seeGt)VKKNMKNT, 15 /; ; IsKAKl., 8). Tlie freciuent injunctions in the Hexaleuch warning the people against intermarriage with these conquered groups are clear indications that such intermarriages must have been common.

17. Philistines.[edit]

A new element in the ethnographical environment of Palestine that appears simultaneously with, or shortly p. ... .. before, the invasion of the Hebrews is represented by the Philistines, who, coming (it would apix:ar) from some island or coast-land to the west of i'alestine, succeeded as a sturdy seafaring nation in making settlements along the inhospitable southern coast of Palestine. Their non-Semitic character h:is been quite definitely ascertained ; but, once in i Palestine, they appear to have exchanged their own language for one of the Semitic dialects spoken in the land to which they came. It is rather curious that these Philistines, who generally lived in hostile relations with the Hebrews, and at various times threatened the existence of the Hebrew settlements, were eventu- ally the people to give their name to a district which they never possessed in its entirety. In the latest Assyrian inscriptions, however, Pilastu still appears in its restricted application to the southern coast-land, and it is not until the days of the Roman conquest that the equation ' Palestine = Philistia -f- Canaan ' becomes established.

18. Historical periods.[edit]

On the basis of the Egyptian and the Assyrian inscrip- tions and of the OT, the history of Canaan may be _. . . . divided into three periods: [a) the pre-lsraelitish period, from about 3800

g^ j^ ji^^ definite constitution of the 

Israelitish confederacy ; [h) the Israelitish supremacy from circa 1100 H.C. to circa 740; [c] decline of this supremacy, ending with the absorption of Canaan by Assyria and Babylonia 587 R.C. After the return of the Hebrews from the so-called Babylonian exile, the history of the north and south Ixjcomes involved in the various attempts to found a universal empire, under- taken in succession by Persia, Macedonia, and Rome.

19. Disunion.[edit]

The characteristic note in the history of Canaan dow n to the period of Persian supremacy is the impossibility of any permanent political union among the inhabitants. liven the Hebrews, united by a common tradition and by religion, yield to the inevitable tendency towards political division instead of union. This tendency stands in close relation- ship to the geographical conditions (see G..\..Sm. Hist. Geogr.). The land is split up into coast-land, highland, and valleys ; in consequence of which, it presents climatic extremes suflicient to bring about equally sharp contrasts in social conditions. The resulting heterogeneous disposition of the population appears to have rendered united action (except in extreme necessity) impossible even among those sections most closely united by blood and traditions. [For further details regarding these three periods of Canaanitish history see the articles I.sk.\kl, 6, Hittitk.s, I'hck- NICIA. Philistinls. etc.]. M. J.. JR.

CANALS[edit]

DnS*). E.x. 7 19 Nah. 3 8 RV^k- See Egypt, 6. The Hebrew word denotes the arms or canals of the Nile (ix-n). On artificial water-courses in Palestine see Conduits.

CANANAEAN[edit]

(o KAN&N&IOC [Ti. WH], cananceus \S%-\ fi f I ff [Pcsh.]), the designation applied to Simon the apostle ( Mt. 104 Mk. 3 18 RV ; mg. * Zealot '). The word does not mean an inhabitant of Canaan (so AV Ca.n.VANITK, based upon TR Ka.vo.viTr\%), which in Gr. is usually expressed by xatt'aios (x = 2); nor has it anything to do with Cana. It is a transliteration of l':K:i3. the i)l. of jk3,t (cp Bib. Heb. \ni^), which in Lk' 6 T5 Acts 1 13 is' represented by the Gr. equivalent j;7j\(i)Tris, Zealot (^.t'.).

CANDACE[edit]

(kanAakh [Ti. WH]), queen of the Ethiopians {AldioTTuf}, is incidentally mentioned in Acts 8 27. For the kingdom of Ethiopia which continued to maintain its independence against the Roman enijjerors, see Ethioi'IA. Its queen was often called Candace ; this seems, indecii, to have been regarded as an oflicial title, somewhat like ' Pharaoh' (or rather 'Ptolemy'?) in Eg)'pt. The name occurs in hieroglyphics on a ruined pyramid near ancient Meroe : see Lepsius, Denk- maler, v. pi. 47 (pyram. 20 of Be^erauieh). There, a queen is called Ainen-'aryt and K{e)ne{e)kv.^ It is diflticult to say which of the two or three queens called Candace w;is buried in that tomb.

I. Stral>o(82o; see also I )io Cass. 6829; 54 5) speaks of the one-eyed virago Candace (ttJs ^aertAtVtrijs . . KafSouojt, ij koB' rjna^ Tip^t noi/ X'lBioiriov, av&piKt^ ns yui'n TTfTriipuijieVi) TOr irtpov riiv 6()>0aXniov) who in 22 li.c. attacked Kgypt, overiiowered the three cohorts of Roman soldiers stationed at the first cataract and devastated the Thebaid, but was easily defeated by the legate Petronius, and pursued to her northern capital, Napata, which was destroyed. 2. Pliny (0 35) seems to refer the reign of Candace ('regnare foeminam Candacem') to the time when Nero's explorers passed through Nubia ; his a.ssertion that the name had become somewhat common among the queens of Meroe ('quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit ') is usually pushed much too far against the monumental evidence.

The Ethiopian officer of .^cts 8 cannot well have had any connection with the Candace of Strabo ; but his mistress may not improbably have been the contemporary of Nero.

Nero's explorers reported the southern capital as in ruins, in consequence of internal wars between the Ethiopians ; most likely, the royal residence had already been shifted .S. to Wady- es-Sofra and Soba, where ruined p.ilaces and temples of the latest style have been found, but the kingdom appears still to have taken its name from the capital Meroe where the kings were, at least, buried.

For the condition of the Meroitic kingdom at that time and the part played by the queens (or rather kings' mothers), see Etiuoi-ia. \v. m. m.

CANDLE[edit]

(n: ; AyXNOc). Job 186 Mt. 5.5 etc. ; cp below, and see Lamp.

CANDLESTICK[edit]

the RV rendering of (i) m'nordh rrilJp Ex. 25 31 etc. (AyXNIa). 'lie well-known candela- brum of the temple, and (2) Aram, ncbrasta NTOnSp (deriv. uncert. ), Dan. 5$ {Kd^MTTd^C [Theod.], <j)a)C []), to the former of which liie present article will con- fine itself, leaving to the articles Lamp and Tkmpi.E further remarks upon the use of lights in temples or shrines, and of lights (and 'candlesticks' or rather ' lampstands ' ) for secular purposes.

1. Not pre-exilic.[edit]

There is no critical evidence to support the supposition that the temple candelabrum described by P in Ex. 25 31 jf. 2>~ \T ff- existed before the Exile. On ^j^g contrary, an old passage i S. 3 3 (written, perhaps, at the beginning of the seventh century B.C. [Bu. , SHOT; cp Sa.mikl, i. 3 ('^)]) speaks only of a 'lamp' (nj) which seems to have burnt from night-fall until the approach of dawn. Solomon, it is true, is said to have had ten golden inTrtoroth in his temple, five on either side ( i K. 7 49/- ) i ' but they are not mentioned in 2 K. 25 13-17 (in the d Jer. 52 19 their introduction is due to a glossator), nor do we find any trace of them in the templfe descrilxjd by Ezekiel (Ezek. 40/. ), or in the restoration of temple-treasures by Cyrus (Ezra 1 6/. ).^ These facts, as well as internal evidence, support Stade's conclusion that the passage in I K. is an interpolation (ZATWiiti f. ['83]. GVI I230 ; cp Now. HA 240 n. 2, and Benz. ad loc). The

1U?> [Hieroglyph image] read for the disficured fifth sign. _ j, . ,

2 .Apart from the instruments used in tending thts candlestick an<l the lamps themselves, mention is made only of the ' flowers ' (rns, in Ki. Aofiiro[(]ia [in Zech. 4 2 = Vi, ' bowl '], in 2 Ch. 4 21 Ao/s'iaes [/./., D^np^';'!?, ' tongs ']).

3 Unmentioned also in 2 Mace. 2 5 and the Apoc. of Baruch


ten candlesticks of the temple of Solomon have probably been evolved from the imaj^ination of a later scnlx.*, who seems to have adopted the numl)er ten to agree with the ten ' bases ' (n'llic) ; cp i K. 7 39- Obviously it is no real objection to our view of the critical value of i K. 7 49 that the Chronicler mentions candlesticks of gold and silver among David's gifts to Solomon in i Ch. '28 15. That this verse in its present f(jrm h;is suffered amplification appears from a comparison with .

Tradition tielii that these ten candlesticks (Jos. augments the nuin)>cr to 10,000 1 [.-tnt.viii.'.ij]) citlicr were already present along with the Mosaic candelalirum, or were exact copies of it (cp a Ch. 4 7, CCSw'03). Naturally Solomon's great wealth was considered a sulTicienf explanation of the otherwise curious fact that, where.xs he employed ten candlesticks, the Mosaic taber- nacle and the second temple were content with one. Bammiiihar Rahha, 15, adds that the candlestick was one of the five things taken away and preserved at the destiuction of Solomon's temple.

3 Description.[edit]

The candlestick of gold, called also the ' pure candle- stick ' (Lev. 244), is described at length by P in Kx. 253:^ ( = 37i7#)- It was placed out- " ^^^ ^^ "  ! shewbread (see the \'g. addition to Nu. 8 a). The m'ndrdh comprised the t;v (AV shaft),^ njD (branch, KoXafdaKOi), y'33 (AV bowl, RV cup, KpaHjp, scyphus), ninsp (knop, atpaipuj-fip \ Targ. Pesh. 'apple'), 2 and rns (flowers, Kpivov [similarly Targ. Pesh. Vg. 'lily']), perhaps collectively ' ornamentation.' The workman- ship was nc'i7a. ' beaten-work ' or repoussd (so Topf I'Tiis ; but /TTf/jf 6j in Xu. 8 4 Ex. 37 i4[i7] ; Jos. , on the other hand, has Kfxwf'M^J'OJ. 'cast'). From an upright shaft three arms projected on either side. Each branch comprised three cups described as C"li3rp> ' shaped like [or ornamented withjalmonds' (^(creTVTrii/xfi'oi Kapi'iffKoi'j see .Almond), together with ka/tornm\ />i!>a/i. Under each pair of branches w.as a kajior (Kx. 2535), and four sets of kaftor and pdrnh were to be found ' in the candlestick' (.Tiijr:3. i.e., on the shaft, v. 34). These four may have included the three of v. 35, in which case the fourth was between the base and the lovsest pair, or near tlie summit. Possibly, however, the four sets came between the topmost pair of branches and the summit (cp the illustration in Keland Z>^ ^S>6i//V.f Ttmpli, facing p. 35). The centre shaft in Zechariah's vision was surmounted by a bowl ( 1 2 Sj XajuirdStoi'). From Jos. (.//. iii. 67) we learn that the candelabrum was hollow, and comprised o-i^aipia, xpii'a with poitTKOi and KpartipiSia, seventy ornaments in all.^' It ended in seven heads ' (toToiAAriAai,' and w.ns situated obliquely (Aof<oO before the t.-ihle of shewbread, and thus looked K. and ,S. 's version of Ex. 37 17^ (differing widely from the present MT) supplies the interesting statement that from the brancbes (icaAa/iicrKOt) there ^oceedeti three sprouts (fi\a<rroC) on either side ' c'f lo-ov^cfoi oAAjjAois.' Rabbinical tradition (cp Talm. .l/(ni</;. 28^^, Abar-

> -]; (Ex. 25 3 1 37 1 7 Nu. 3 4) is difficult. RV renders ' base ' ; so Pesh. (aXLfldi [i.e., ^ao-it], l^) ; but AV finds support in <D Vg. (icauAov, hostile, stipes, and in Ex. 37 iT^ovectis [used also of the 0*13 ' staves ' for carr>'ing the ark]). 1 when used of inanimate objects denotes the 'flank' (cp Ex.40 72 24 I.cv. 1 ir Nu. 82935 2 K. 16 14). The specific mention of the 'base' of the candlestick accordingly seems uncertain, unless perhaps we .should read 1*2, '.stand,' ' base ' (cp 2 Ch. (5 13), instead of T'". On the other hand, the candlestick may have had originally no ba.sc (cp alwve, ji 4).

3 Perhaps a pear-shaped ornament : cpSyr. J< K^ t/sx and see BDB, s.v.

  • It is difficult to see how he obtains this numt)er. Six

branches each with 3 sets af g,M,i, kaftfir, and //-// (32 yl), including the shaft with 4 similar sets (f. 34) arid the 3 ka/tirlm (v. 35), amount to 69 (54-1-12-^3). Perhaps to this we mu.st add the figure at the summit of the central shaft (iwssibly ornamented in a different manner). The artist in a Hebrew MS of the first half of the thirteenth century (Hrit. Mus., Harley, 5710, fi>l. 136a), following a different interpr. ta- tion of I'.x. 25 33, assigns only one perah and kaftfr to each branch, including the shaft. Each of the seven branches has ^gtbl hit, and at the extremity a lamp (T3). Below the ka/tdr joining the lowest pair of branches the artist has drawn (reckoning downwards) s^ptrak, a ka/tdr, and a.gebla.

banel, Rashi. etc., on Ex. I.e.) maintained that the candelabrum stooti three ells in height and measured twoclls txrtwccn the outer lights ; and that it stood upon a triixxl (.Maimonides ; cp C'rcniut, 0^sc.isk.sc. vi. 22/.). Tlie seven lam jw were provided with pur olive oil (Ex. 27 30/.), and for ihe general service were supplied ' tongs (D'n)?'^), 'snuff dishes '(n'tPrC), and variotu 'oil vessels' (19?* '??)' The lamps were to \x tended daily (Ex. 30 7/.) ; hut tr.idition varied as to how many were kept lit at one time.'* The light wa< never allowed to be extinguished, and tradition rekues that the approaching fall of the temple was prognosticated by the sudden occurence of this mishap (Talm. i'oma, 39;^); cp the lament in a Esd. 10 22 (written after the fall of JerusalcmX lumen candelabri nostri extincluin est.

It was forbidden to reproduce the candlesticks exactly (cp Oni.is and the temple of LeoiUopolis, li/ vii. 10 3); but this law could l>e evaded by making them with five, six, or even eight arms {Ah. iCara, 43a).*

3. History.[edit]

The holy candelabrum is referred to comparatively seldom in subse(|uent writings.* It forms the motive in ision (/ech. 4, cp kev. 114). C. 170 Antiochus I'.piphanes carried it off along with the golden altar etc. (i Mace. 1 21, j^ \i<Xvla. ToO (t>urr6s [AKJ, om. V) ; but a fresh one (tradition relates that 11 was of inferior material) was reconstructed by Judas after the purification of the temple ( 164 B.C. , i Mace. 449). Jesus the son of Sirach employs the Xvxi'ot (K\dfj.ircoi> ^ni Xi/xvtaj ay ia^ as a simile for beauty in ripe old age (Kcclus. '26 17). The same is doubtless the Xi'xvia lepd seen by I'ompey (.-/n/. xiv. 4 4), which, with its seven Xi'^^oi, was one of the three famous objects in the temi)le of Herod (///v. 55). Its fate at the fall of Jerusalem is well known. The holy candelabrum, or, more probably, a copy of it, was carried in the triumph of Titus (/// vii. 55), and was depicted upon the famous arch w hich bears his name. X'espasian deposited it in the temple of Peace, and after various vicissitudes (.see Smith, D/P'^\ s.v. ) it was placed in the Christian church at Jerusalem (533 A.O. ). AH trace of it has since been lost. Possibly it was destroyed or carried off by Chosroes II. of Persia, when, in 614, he took and pillaged Jerusalem (see Levesque in V'igouroux, L>B, s.v. ).

Curiously enough, Joscphus, in his account of the triumi)h of Titus, states that the workmanship (^^ok) of the candlestick was not the same as that which had been in the temple.' As was the case with other objects in the triumph, it was probably constructed from the de- scriptions of the captives ; besides, such conventional candlesticks were not imknown at that time.* The gritlin-like figures depicted upon the base of tlie candelabrum may be possibly ascribed to the artist ; so far as can lye judged, they do not resemble the mythical symbols from Palestine or .Assyria. Consef|uently, in endeavouring to gain an idea of the original seven- branched candlestick, one nuist not adhere too strictly to the representation upon the .Arch of Titus.

The language em()loyed to descrilx; the sacred m'ndnih shows that it must have closely resembled a tree.^ Seven-branched trees are freciuenlly met with in sculptures, etc., from the E,* and, as Robertson Smith observes. ' in most of the Assyrian examples it is not easy to draw the line Ijetween the candelabrum and the sacred tree crowned with a star or crescent moon ' (/i'5<-' 488). Since it is only natural to look for traces of Assyrian or

' Zech. 4i2 mentions also riTFiJS, 'pipes,' for conveying the oil (fiufuiTJjp*^).

a Cp Ex. 27 20/ 2 ( h. 13 II and Jos. Ww/. iii. 8 3. Rabbinical tradition held that only otu was lit by day. This, it h.xs l>een suggested, was the lamp upon the central shaft (called 'lim -uX

' Thus, e.g., in the \ east of Tabem.icles (see Succah, o 2).

  • The evidence for the existence of more than one in post-

exilic times rests only upon Jos. iif/vi. 83. With Wm/. xii. 64 (i M.-ICC. 1 2i) contrast //. 7 6.

  • BJ vii. 55 [ed. Niescj. The passage is not free from

olxscurity. Noteworthy is the remark that slender arms (xavAio-Koi) resembling the form of a trident were drawn forth. (See \ 4.)

8 Cp their use as symbols in Rev. 1 \-i/. 2iff'.i$.

7 Cp simil.irly the candelabrum in the temple of the Palatine Apollo (Pliny, 34 8).

8 A seven-branched palm upon a coin of the Maccabees ; see Madden, Coins c/the Jru>s, 71, n. 7.

Babylonian influence in tlie second temple, it is not improljable that the tn'nordh was originally a represent- ation of the sacred seven-branched tree itself, possibly indeed the tree of life.^ The six arms, instead of coming up and forming a straight line with the toji of the central shaft, ])iobably tapered off, the extremities of each pair being lower than those of the pair above it, thus i)resenting more accurately the outline of a tree. Examples of candelabra with the arms thus arranged are not unknown.'^

It is not imp<issible that the Ethrog and Lulab ('citron' and 'palm-branch' ; cp Ai'PLt;, 2 [3]) of the Feast of Tabernacles (wherein c.indlesticks played so important a part) are to be connected also with this sacred seven-branched tree, from which, it has been sug- gested, the m'nordh has teen evolved. The specific tree represented was one which, for various re;\sons, was con- siilered the most unique and valuable. The choice may have depended more strictly upon the belief that it was supposed to represent the tree of temptation in the Paradise myth (so at all events in Christian times ; cp Didron, .\fanut'l J' /conoi^raphie chrt'iienne, 80).

See Reland, /A' .S><)///.f Tcmf>li ; H.O^xU, Disguisitin . . . de ccuitirlahri . . . struct urn (1708); Reinach, L'Arc de Titus (Paris. 18.J0); and Vigouroux, DB, s.v. 'Chandelier,' with the literature there quoted. S. A. C.

CANE, SWEET[edit]

(HJp), Is. 4824 Jer. 620. See Reed, I (*).

CANKERWORM[edit]

(P^* : Broyxoc or akric). Ps. 10034 Jer. f)! 14 27 Joel 1 4 [twice], 225 Nah. 3i5i6t; in Ps. and Jer. A\' h.is Catk.kj'1I,lkk. The Hebrew jf/^* is usually regarded as denoting a young stage in the history of the locust ; but this seems doubtful. See Locust, 2, n. 6.

CANNEH[edit]

( n33 ), Ezek. 27 23, MT, usually taken for the name of a ])lace in Mesopotamia with which Tyre had commercial dealings, anil identitied with Calneh (see Schr. in Riehm's //IJV^^), 1 256). Cornill even reads 'Calneh' (,13^3), appealing to a single Heb. MS which reads thus, and to variants of (5 viz., xa^Xo" [AB], XoXkoX [V]. But the name is really non-existent ; the words rendered ' and Canneh and Eden ' should rather be ' and the sons of J'"den.'

Everywhere else we read either of Beth-Eden or of B'ne Eden ; it is not probable that there is an exception here. The Xa>'aa[H], or xavojav [AQ] of , is not ,1333, but yjj or jyj^, where y or jy is a relic of py, and J3 a corruption of '33. NIost M.SS of give only two names, and the second name is not Canneh (as Smith's DJi*'^'), but a corruption of IVne Kden. The discovery (for such it seems to be) is due to Mez (ircsch. der Stadt Harrdn, 1892, p. 34). t. K. C.

CANON[edit]

INTRODUCTION: THE IDEA OF A CANON (1-4)

A. OLD TESTAMENT.

  • i. Contents of OT canon (S 5-14).
    • Extent and cl.assification ( 5).
    • Order of books (SS 7-9)-
    • In Sci)tuai;int ( 10-11)
    • In Josephus, Jerome(12-14).
  • ii. Closing Of Canon (S 15-22).
    • Early tradition ( 15-17).
    • Elias Levitaand 'The Great Synagogue'(SS-21).
    • Scientific method (SS 22).
  • iii. History Of Canon (23-59).
    • First canon : the Law ( 23-27).
    • Second canon : the Prophets ( 28-42).
      • Why not canonised with Law ( 28-35).
      • Traditions, etc. ( 36-38).
      • Date ( 39-42).
    • Third canon : Hagiographa ( 43-59).
      • Principle observed ( 43-47).
      • Date (S 48-55)-
      • Resume (S 56).
      • Non-Palestinian views (S 57-8)
      • OT canon in Christian Church (S 59).

B. NEW TESTAMENT.

  • Gradual growth ( 60-64).
  • Evidence of orthodox writers ( 65-68).
  • Evidence of unorthodox writers ( 69).
  • Versions ( 70).
  • General traces of NT ( 71).
  • Muratorian canon ( 72).
  • Books temporarily received ( 73).
  • Result (74).

Bibliography : OT and NT ( 75/).

1 Greek Terms[edit]

The word canon is Greek ; its application to the Bible beloni^s to Christian times ; the idea originates in -'"^'=^'*'"- Greek (6) Kavwv (allied to Kayua, Kavt}, ' a reed ' ; borrowed from the Semitic ; Heb. ,-::p) means a straight rod or pole, a rod used for measuring, a carpenter's rule ; and, by met- onymy, a rule, norm, or law ; a still later meaning is that of catalogue or list.

-As applied to the books of Scripture Kavdof is first met with in the second half of the fourth century ; thus, /3t/S\ta KavoviKO. (as opposed to aKavoviffra) in can. 59 of the Council of Laodicea {circa 360 A.D. ), and ^. Kavovi^b- fieva in .Vthanasius {e/>. fcsf. 39 ; 365 A. D. ) ; Kaviliv for the whole collection is still later.

2. Early usage.[edit]

The original signification is still a question. Did the term mean {a) the books constituted into a standard ; or {fi) the books corresponding to the standard {i.e. of the faith ; cp Kavujf iKK\r)<na<XTLK6s, k.

1 Perhaps originally a symbol of the universe the tree of life beini; viewed as distinct in its origin from the sacred mount.iin of Elrihim with which in a later myth it was combined. (Cp j achim and HoAZ.) It is noteworthy that a seven-branched palm is represented by the side of an altar on an old Greek vase . (Ohnefalsch-Richter, h'yfiros, pi. 155, fig. 3).

2 Cp PEF Twenty-one Years IVork in the Holy Land, 154, the representation upon an amethyst reproduced in Reland, De Sfiol., facing p. 35, also ih. facing p. 42. The older form may in time have tended toappro.ach the conventional form represented upon the arch of Titus, which agrees with later Jewish tradition. This form, resembling a trident in its oiitline, is especially noted by Jos. .-IS a novelty (B/ vii. 5 5). For illustrations of the latter variety see Martigny, Diet. Ant. Chr/t. ('77) 113 ; the plates in Calmet's Dictionary ; and one at Tabariyeh (Perrot-Chipiez, .,^ r/ in Jud. 1 250).

T^s d.\rjOia^, K. TTJt irlffTeus) and measured by it (cp A.-ai'oi'ccrat in Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, circa 200 A. D. , in Holtzmann, p. 115/.), or perhaps underlying it ; or (( ) the Ixioks taken up into the authoritative catalogue or into the normal number? The subject is discussed with full references to the literature in Holtzmann, pp. 142 ^ It is not improbable that the word passed through various phases of meaning in course of time.

The idea involved is clearly fixed ; 0f6irvVffTai ypa<pai (.\mphilochius, ofi. 395), iriaTtvOivra dtia flvai ^ifiXla (.\thanasius, ut sup.) are expressions concurrently used to convey the same meaning. It was, as we saw alxjve, a loan from Judaism, and within the Christian domain origin.ally applied only to the sacred b<X)ks of the synagogue the OT. So already in the NT itself (2 'Tim. 3 16). The doctrine of the synagogue was that all the writings included in its canon had their origin in divine inspiration, and that it was God who spoke in them (Weber, 20 1 ). This canon, with the doctrine attached to it, passed over to the Christian church and became its sole sacred book,' until new writings of Christian origin came to be added, and the Jewish canon, as the Old Testament, was distinguished from the New.

3. Hebrew terms.[edit]

The composite expression ' canonical books ' has an analogue in the usage of the synagogue. From the first century A.D. such books are designated C'T.T m C'KSas ( ' that defile the hands ' : - Yiidayiin 3 2 4 5' 4 5 6 ; cp F.duyoth 5 3, and

1 But see also below, gj 57-59. ' See below, g 40.

8 See below, ( 53.

WcIkt, 21 i). Of this surprising expression still more surprising explanations have Ixx-n oftcrecl.

Thus (e kept apart, and thus kept from harm such as might arise, e.g., if they were kept near consecrated corn, and so exposed to attack from mice, f ) A. (leiger (Hinlerlnsifiu Scliri/Uti, A 14) actually maintains that only such rolls as had l>cen written on the skins of unclean beasts were intended to be declared unclean.

4. Sanctity[edit]

All such explanations are disposed of by Yadavim 84. where there is a sixxial discussion of the question whether the unwritten margins and outer coverings of sacred rolls detile the hands. I'nder none of the aljove explanations could any such c|uestion as this possibly arise. The fact that detilement only of the hands is

*"''"'*^' ^ '^^ sacred writings demands 

^' moreattentionthan it has hitherto received. Interpreted in positive terms this can mean only that contact with them invohes a ceremonial washing of the hands, esiK'cially as the ruling in the matter occurs in that Mishna treatise which relates to, and is n.^nied from, such hand -washings. The expression would be an unnatural one if it implied a command that the hands should l)e washed before touching (so Fiirst, p. 83). As enjoining washing a'ter contact it is ciuite intelligible. The Pharisees (under protest from the Sadducees ; cp rW. 46) attributed to the sacred writings a sanctitv of such a sort that whosoever touched them was not allowed to touch aught else, until he had undergone the same ritual ablution as if he had touched something unclean. ' The s;ime precept, according to the stricter view, applied to the prayer ribljiinds on the iephi/Dm (Vad.'H^; see Fronti.kts, end). To this detilement of the hands the correlative idea is that of holiness ; "^ Vxjth ciualities are attributed together, but only to a very limited numljer of writings, namely the canonical (cp Yad.Zs). See also Ci.EA.v, 3.

A. OLD TESTAMENT.[edit]

I. EXTINT AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE OT CANON.[edit]

6 No of 'books'[edit]

The extent of the OT canon, so far as the synagogue '^ concerned, is exactly what we find in our

'^*-"'"^^^' printed texts and in the Protestant 

translations. The original reckoning of the synagogue, however, does not regard the books as thirty- nine. The twelve nunor prophets count as one book called ' the twelve," iry c'W (so already in Haba /iathra, x-^b, i5(Ztext), Dodekapropheton ; soalso Sanmel, Kings, and Chronicles ; whilst Ezra and Nehemiah form one book of Ezra. Thus 1 1 -t- 3 -(- 1 = 1 5 have to be deducted from our 39, leaving only 24.^ See ^ w ff.

6. Classification[edit]

The twenty-four canonical books fall into three main divisions: ,nin (the law) with five books, c"k-3: (the P0P'i<^'s) ^h eight, and o'^ina (the writ- '"^^' ^=i&'oSrapha) with eleven. The prophets consist of four historical books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and four prophetical ( Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor). Since the Massoretic period (cp Strack, /^A'A'-* "439) the first group has borne the name of d':ic-kt C'N'3J ( ' former prophets') to distinguish it from the second, c-k"2j C':T'.nK ( ' latter prophets '). Among the Hagiographa a distinct group is formed by the five (festal) ' rolls ' ~an

J .SeeWRS, Rel. Sem.n\ ,6,, 452. He well adds th.-it the nigh priest on the Day of .Atonement washed his flesh with water, not only when he put on the holy garments of the day, but also when he put them off(I.ev. 1(124 ; )Vw<i, 74).

' With this corresponds the Mishnic name of the canon 3n3 ITip.l. while the names isort. DTao tacitly supplement the idea of holiness. To these exactly answer the NT expressions ypa<^l oyiat, Ifpo ypoMuara, y\ ypai^ij, ax ypa<f>ai. For other names sec below, and for fuller details cp Strack, 438 /

  • Hence a very common old name for the collection, still fre-

quently in use : ' the twenty-four books,' C'IBO nyaiKl 2'"li."V, written also C"1E0 V 2-

Hence the old collective title D>3inD1 D'K'ZJ niW with its Massoretic contraction -yn- n^Vjo printed in modern impressions in the order of the feasts at which they are read in the synagogue : Canticles (Passover). Kuth (Pentecost). I-imentations (9th Ab. Destruction of Jeru.salem), Ecclesi;istcs ( Talwrnacles). hjither ( Purim ). Only once ( in the liaraytha ' Uerachoth, Ijb) do we find the three larger |j<jetical b<x)ks Psalms, Proverbs, and Job grouped together as c'l'nj C'lw:. and the three smallerCai'iicles, ixclesiastes, I^-imenta- tions as c';cp C".":in3. Finally, Daniel. Ezra, Chronicles close the list.

7. Uncertain order[edit]

Compass and threefold division of the canon are already taken ;is fully settled in a very old and authori- '^'^ passage in the tradition of the synagogue, viz. the liaraytha liaba Bathra, i^b i^a ; but as to the order of the books within their several divisions the same passage gives a decision for the first time. The ex- planation of this is that in the oldest times the sjicred writings were not copied into continuous co<iices. Each book had a separate roll to itself.'^ Accordingly, in the preceding Baraytha (fiaba liathra, iT,b), we find the question started whether it be jx-rmissible to write the entire Holy Scriptures, or even the eight prophets, on a single roll. On the strength of some precedent or other the (|uestion is answered in the afiirmative ; and this leads up to the further question as to the order in which the single Ixwks in the second and the third divisions

I ought to \y<i written. This plainly shows that there was as yet on the subject no fixed tradition, and therefore too great importance ought not to be attached either to the

I Mishnic determination of the question or to the departure from Mishnic u.sage which we meet with.* Both, how- ever, are worthy of attention.

8 Prophets[edit]

The order of the prophets proper, according to our passage, ought to be: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the

'"*^'^'^- "^'^ jx)silion of Isaiah seems to

^ have struck even the teachers of the Gemara as remarkable, and is explained by them in a fanciful way. The Massora gives Isaiah the first place, and in this it is followed by the MSS of Spanish origin (as by the printed texts), while the Oerman and French MSS adhere to the Talmudic order. Just Ix.-cause of its departure from strict chronology, we are justified in assuming that the Talmudic order rests on old and good tradition. We may safely venture, therefore, to make use of it in the attempt to answer the (|uestion of the origin not only of the individual books but also of the canon.

8. Hagiographa[edit]

For the first books of the Hagiographa, the order given in our printed texts Psalms, Proverbs, Job ^^'^^^ '^ ^^^^ '^^ ^^^ German and French ^^' B'^es place in our passage to this

  • ^ P * order: Ruth, Psalms. Job, Proverbs. .Sup-

posing this to be the original place of the Book of Ruth, we might account for its later change of [xjsition by a desire to group together the five festal rolls. This explanation, however, is impossible for the reason that the Massora and the Spanish MSS put Chronicles in- stead of Ruth in the first place and lx;fore the Psalter. Of course, the same purpose is served by either arrange- ment : each of them prefixes to the (Davidic) Psalter a lx)ok which helps to explain it. The liook of Ruth performs this service inasnmch as it concludes with David's genealogical tree and closes w ilh his name ; and the liook of Chronicles does so in a still higher degree, inasmuch as, in addition to the genealogy ( i Ch. 1<)ff.). it gives an account of David's life, particularly of his elatx)rate directions for the temple service and temple music. Thus the claim of the Psalter to the first place

1 Bara>nha (J<n""^2) is a Mishna tradition which has not been taken into the c.nnon of the Mishna, but comes from the same period (about 200 A.n.). On the very important passage referred to cp Marx, Traditio etc.

" The Law w.is an exception ; its five books as a rule consti- tuted but one roll, although the five fifths (prOW) were to be met with also separately (cp Mei^i/la, 27a).

' Cp the excellent synoptic table in Ryle {Cohch o/OT, 281X

is only confirmed by both variations (that of the Talmud and that of the Nlassora) from the usual order. ^ On the other hand, the Massora and the Spanish MSS sujJixjrt the order, Psalms, Job, I'roverbs (Job Ijcfore Proverbs), which therefore must be held to be the older arrangement, the other being explained by the desire to make Solomon come immediately after David.

The arrangement of the five "rolls" in the order of their feasts is supported only by the German and the French MSS. The M;issora and the Spanish MSS have Kuth, Cant. Keel. Lam. Esth., whilst Baba Bathra, after transjwsing Ruth in the manner we have seen, gives the order Eccl. Cant. Lam., then intro- duces Daniel, and closes the list with P^^sther. We may venture to infer from this ( i ) that the arrangement of the Megilloth in the order of their feasts in the ecclesiastical year is late and artificial ; (2) that about the year 200 .\.D. they had not even been constituted a definite group ; (3) that the inversion of the order of Daniel and Esther, and the removal of Ruth from the head of the list, were probably designed to effect this, the position of Daniel before Esther having thus a claim to t>e regarded as the older ; and (4) that the original position of the Book of Ruth is quite uncertain, because the first place among the rolls may have been assigned to it by the Massora simply because it had been deposed from the first place among the Hagiographa. We may, further, regard it as probable that Proverbs was origin- ally connected, as in Baba B., with the other Solomonic writings. Finally, it may be taken as perfectly certain that Ezra and Chronicles closed the list.-*

10. The Septuagint[edit]

The definition, division, and arrangement of books as given above, which rests on real tradition, and must constitute the basis for our subsec|uent investigations, is violently at variance with that of the LXX. It will be sufficient merely to indicate the differences here, for, as compared with the canon of the synagogue, that of the LXX represents only a secondary stage in the development.

(i) The arrangement of the LXX is apparently in- tended to be based on the contents of the books. The poetical books are, on the whole, regarded as didactic in character, the Prophets proper as mainly predictive, whilst the Law leads up to the historical books and is closely connected with the Former Prophets. As the Prophets are placed at the end, the progress of the collection is normal from the past (historical books) to the present (didactic books) and the future (books of prophecy).

Certain, however, of the miscellaneous collection which forms the Hagiographa those, namely, that are historical are trans- ferred to the first division, where a place is assigned them on chronological principl'js. Ruth (cp 1 1) is inserted immediately after Judges, whilst Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther are appended at the end. Lamentations, on the other hand, regarded as the work of Jeremiah (cp 2 Ch. 3625 and the opening words of the book in (5), is transferred to the third division (prophetic books) and appended to Jeremiah ; whilst Daniel closes the entire collec- tion. Lastly, Job, regarded as a purely historical book,* serves to effect the transition from the historical to the didactic writings.

Of the prophetical books, the Dodecapropheton heads the list (in a somewhat varying order of the individual books), pre- sumably on account nf the higher antiquity of the writings which open it.

(2) Samuel and Kings together are divided into four books of Kings. Chronicles is divided into two books, as is also (subsequently) Ezra. (3) In varying degrees new writings unknown to the Hebrew canon are inter- polated.

1 Cp also 2 Mace. 2 13/ ; Lk. 24 44.

2 This is supported by Jerome in Prol. Gal. (cp the text in Ryle, 287 ff.). Other variations, it is true, occur in the same author.

3 It should be added that the MSS show the utmost irregularity in their arrangement of the Hagiographa; cp Ryle, Excursus C, aSiyC, and, for some important details, A. Kahlfs, ' Alter u. Heimat der vaticanischeii Bibelhandschrift," GOJV, 1899, Heft I (Philol.-hUt. Klasse).

  • There is, however, considerable vacillation as to its position.

For other variations, which are very numerous, cp Ryle, 213 ^. , and the table appended to 281.

11. Ruth and Lam[edit]

The very various arrangements of the Hebrew canon which have been adopted in the Christian Church can ,, T>,.+i, J ^11 be traced back to the LXX, with more or less far-reaching corrections based on the canon of the synagogue.

Among all the divergences of the LXX from the syna- gogue arrangement, there is only one concerning which it is worth while considering whether it may not jx)ssibly represent the original state of things as against the syna- gogue tradition : Ruth is made to follow Judges, and Lamentations Jeremiah. If the actual state of the case be that these two books ranked originally among the projjhets, but were afterwards transferred to the Hagio- grajiha, the historical value of the threefold division of the canon is very largely impaired.

12 Josephus[edit]

Now, this order of the books is supported by the oft-recurring reckoning of twenty-two books instead of twenty-four (cp above, 2), a reckoning which can be explained only on the assumption that Ruth and Lamentations were not '^^""'^ separately, being regarded as integral parts of Judges and Jeremiah. Our sole Jewish witness to this is Josephus (c. A p. i. 8 ; circa 100 A.I). ). He gives the total as twenty- two, made out as follows: Moses, 5; Prophets after Moses, 13 ; hymns to God and precepts for men, 4. The last-named category doubtless means the Psalms and the three Solomonic writings. Thus Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles, and even Job, are, as his- torical books, reckoned with the prophets, and Ruth and Lamentations are not counted at all that is to say, they are included in Judges and Jeremiah. ^ Here clearly a compromise has been struck be- tween the threefold division of the synagogue, which places the prophets in the intermediate position, and the division of the Alexandrians, which arranges the books according to subjects. The Alexandrian canon is obviously in view also in the pointed addition [/3t/i\ta] t4 dLKaiws wein<jTviJiiva,'^ by which the lx)oks not con- tained in the canon of the synagogue are excluded. \\'e may conclude, therefore, that also the reason why Ruth and Lamentations are not reckoned as separate books is that the LXX is followed ; and thus we have no fresh testimony here. There is a further remark to be made. That the seven books just mentioned should be removed from the prophetic canon, if they once were there, to a place among the Hagiographa** could be explained only by a desire to have the festal rolls beside one another. In the oldest tradition, how- ever, there was no such group of rolls (see above, 9).

13. Origin of No. 22.[edit]

The supposed motive, therefore, could not have been operative. On the other hand, the number twenty-two has an artificial and external motive, not indicated by Josephus, but mentioned by all the Church fathers from Origen downwards : * there is thus one book for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This childish fancy is carried to an extreme point when the books are reckoned as twenty- seven (an alternative which is offered by Epiphanius and Jerome) to do justice to the five final letters also : the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra are divided, the fifth being sujjplied in Epiphanius by Judges and Ruth, in Jerome by Jeremiah and Lamentations. That this is mere arbitrary trifling is obvious.

t For various blundering attempts to put another meaning on the canon of Josephus, cp Str.ick, 428, Ryle, 166. Briggs (see o/. (;/. below, 75, p. 127 yC) inclines to the opinion that Josephus did not recognise as canonioil the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. See, on this {>oint, below, $ 52^

  • The word 6tla after iucaiia^ is disallowed by Niese as an

interpolation.

3 A thing improbable in itself, as implying a degradation. See below, 43.

  • Cp the passages in Ryle, 221, and still more exhaustively

in Strack, 435 ^.

14. Jerome, etc.[edit]

On the other hand Jerome gives also the number twenty-four (Prol. Gal.), cautiously describing it as a reckoning accepted by ' nonnulli,' Ruth and Lamentations thus being counted among the Hagiogrripha. A symbolical sense, b;s-<l on Rev. 4 4 10, is found for this nuiiilK-r also. In the ProIogiU" to Danii-1 , however, Icromc adojits 24 as the only reckoning : he counts 5, 8, and 11 books to each of the divisions respectively, thouj;h he docs not mention the total. Sup|)ort is given to the liaraytha Itaha D. 14^, i ^a in like manner by the contcmi>orary testimony of liera- cholh i-jh, which cjuotes Cant. Keel, and Lam. as ' writ- ings," and by the Targum of Jonathan on the prophets, where Ruth and Lam. are wanting. Finally, our oldest witness 4th Esdras, proliably written under Domitian (85-96 A. I). ), and therefore contemiwrary with Josephus represents F",zra as writing at the divine command 94 books (chap. 14) i.e. , after deduction of the 70 esoteric book.s. the 24 books of the canon.*

The number twenty-two, therefore, certainly comes from a Jewi.sh source ; but it is a mere play of fancy. The original place of Ruth and Lamentations, accord- ingly, was in the third part of the canon.

II. Tradition relating to the close of the Canon.[edit]

16. No canonization.[edit]

Even had there been a binding decision of a qualified body by which the numb-T . . . of books (twenty-four) was declared ,^. ^^,,^^,^^\ j.^,, ,.^,1 other books wt

excluded from the canon, there could hardly have beeh any tradition of it. According to the idea of the mean- ing and origin of canonicity entertained by the synagogue (the sole custodian of tradition), and inherited from it by the Christian Church, canonicity dei)ends on inspiration, and this attribute each of the twenty-four books brought with it into the world quite indei)endently of any ruling, and in a manner that unmistak.ably distinguished it from every other writing. The growth of the canon was represented as being like that of a plant ; it began with the appearance of the first inspired book, and closed with the completion of the last. The cjuestion accordingly was simply this : When was the latest canonical book coni|X)sed? or, if this admits of being answered. Who was its human author?

16. Baba Bathra.[edit]

To this question the tradition of the synagogue actually offers an answer, in the same Daraytha liaba Hat lira \j\b 15a in which the order of the Prophets and the Writings is determined. The passage proceeds thus : ' And who WTote them ? ' and names the writers of the several books in exact chronological see] uence. The last of them is Ezra. With him, therefore {i.e., according to traditional chronology, about 444 B.C.), the canon closed. -

One can easily understand that, once Ezra had been named as the latest author of any biblical book, men did not remain content with the assertion (cjuite correct, if we admit its premises) which attributed to him the closing of the canon merely de facto, without deliberate act or puqxjse. Rather did each succeeding age, according to its lights, attribute to him (or to his time) whatever kind of intervention it conceived to be necessary in order to secure for the canon a regular and orderly closing.

17. 4 Esdras[edit]

The oldest form of this kind of tradition, so far as known to us, goes back earlier by a whole century than the tradition of the synagogue. It is to be found in the passage of 4 Esdras (chap. 14) that has been referred to already.^* lizra {v. \%ff.) prays God to grant him by his Holy Spirit that he may again write out the books

J The numbers differ in the various forms of the text. Besides 04 we find 904, 204, 84, 974. All, however, agree in the decisive figure 4 ; cp Ryle, 156^ 285.

The real date of Ezra and the promulgation of the law related in Neh. 8-10 will be con.sidered elsewhere (see Chkon- OLOGY, i 14; Nemenuah). The results of the present article would not be altered es.sentially by fixing it, e.g., in the year 427 or even 397, instead of 444. In what follow*, (herefore, 444 B.C. means simply the date of Neh. 8-10. A full discus-sion of the point and a survey of recent literature will be found in C. F. Kent, A History o/the Jetfish people during tlu Babylonian, Persian, and Grrek periods. New York, 1899, pp. 195^ 354.

For what follows cp Ryle. Excursus A, 239 ff., where a very copious literature with fully translated quotations is (jivcn.

(here called 'the law," iorah. in which perhaps lingers a trace of an oliler form of tradition) which had Ixwn burnt (with the temple, one understands). Cjo<l bids him take to himself five comjxinions, and in forty days and nights he dictates to them ninety-four Ixjoks (see alxjve, 14), of which seventy are esoteric writings, and the remaining twenty-four are the canon of the OT. Of this legend no further trace has hitherto l>cen found in the remains of Jewish literature ; ' but w ithin the Christian Church it shows itself as early as the time of Irenaeus, frctiuently recurs in certain of the fathers (so Tertullian, Clem. Al., Orig. , ICuseb. , Jerome, etc. ), and is prevalent throughout the scholastic ix,-riod, although there it is weakened by references to the powers of ordinary human memory.

18. The Great Synagogue[edit]

The period of the humanists and of the reformation extinguished this as well as many other legends ; * but if the old legend disap|xsired, it was only to make way for .t mo<lern one, not mystic, but rationalistic in character. This latter y ag gu . Qi,t;,i^.(i credence through ICIias I^-vita {ob. 1549), who says** that Ezra tuid the men of the great synagoi^ue (nSnjn nc:3 Tzk), among other things, had united in one volume the twenty-four lK)oks (which until then had circulated separately) and had classilied them into the three divisions alxjve mentioned, determining also the order of the Prophets and the Writings (differently, it is true, from the Talmuflic doctors in Baba Bathra). This assertion satisfied the craving of the times for a duly constituted lx)dy, proceeding in a deliberate manner. Accordingly the statement of Elias Levita, especially after it had been homologated by J. Buxtorf the elder in his Tiberias (1620), became the authoritative doctrine of the orthodoxy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. To it were added, as self- evident, though Ivcvita said nothing of them, the authori- tative decree (Ilottinger), and the separation of the non- canonical writings (so already Huxtorf, and after him Leusden and Carpzov).*

It is vain to seek for the tradition on which Elias Levita based his rciirescntation. The Talmud, which j says a great deal about ' the men of the great synagogue," has not a word to say alxjut this action of theirs w ith reference to the whole l)ody of Scrii)ture. The medi;val Rabbins also touch on the matter but lightly. We con- clude therefore that, to suit the needs of his time, Levita merely inferred such an action from the existence of the body in question.*

Strack gives the originals of the most important pa-S-sages ; cp also Fabricius, Codex I'seudepigraphus IT 1 (i7'3)i >53^. 2(1722), 2S9 j^

1 Cp, however, the elucidation of the passage in Baba B. nb 15a, below, I 21.

2 See, for the attacks directed against it on rationalistic grounds in the Protestant as well as in the Catholic church, Kyle, 247 /?:

3 See third preface to ,tfassorelh hammassoretk (1538, ed. Ginsburg, 1867, p. 120); cp Str.ick, 416.

  • Cp the p.-issages quoted in Kyle, i^x ff- It should be

added that the same step had l)cen taken already in the late post-Talmudic tractate Aboth de K. Xathan (chap. 1). where it is said of ' the men of the great synagogue ' that they decided on the reception of Proverbs, Canticles, and Kcclesiasles, again.st objections that had been urged (see the passages in C. H. H. Wright, 11). We shall see below that an artificial antedating can l>e clearly demonstrated here.

i When Iy;vita points out that the order of the Prophets and the Writings, as fixed there, was diflTcrent from that in Baba B., this only goes to show that the sages of the Mishna still found something for them to give decisions a)>out. Elias Lcviia forgets that these sages found the books written on separate rolls, and that, therefore, there was not \et any order to fix. Cp above, 7.

19. Its true nature[edit]

The evidence for the very existence of a body of the kind reciuircd, however, is extremely slender. From the middle of the seventeenth century it was continually disputed anew. If even moderns must admit that there was a body of some kind, the kind of existence that we can accord to it supplies the strongest refutation of the state- ment of Elias Levita. The cjuestion as to what we are to understand by ' the men of the great synagogue ' (or rather ' assembly ') in the sense in which the expression was originally used, may be regarded as now fully cleared up. Hy a brilliant application and criticism of all that tradition had to say and all the work of his modern predecessors, Kuencn ^ demonstrated that this ' synagogue ' is no other than the great assembly at Jerusalem described in Neh. 8-10 : the assembly in which the whole txidy of the j^oople, under the presidency of Nchemiah and through the signatures of its re|jre- sentatives, pledged itself to acceptance of the law-book of Ezra. This assembly, as the latest authority men- tioned in the OT, was afterwards, by the tradition of the synagogue, made responsible for all those proceedings of a religious nature not referred to in the OT, which, nevertheless, so far as known, dated from a period earlier than the tradition laid down in the Talmud. Since this last, however, with its most ancient (and almost mythical) authorities, the five ' pairs' and Anti- gonus of Socho, does ncjt go back farther than the second century B.C., there gradually grew out of the assembly, whose meetings began and closed within the seventh month of a single year, a standing institution to which people in that later time, each according to his needs and his chronological theories, attributed a duration extending over centuries. This was made all the easier by the chronology of the Talmud bringing the date of the Persian ascendency too low by some 150 years, and thus bringing the beginning and the end closer together. - The activity as regards the canon, then, which Elias Levita and his followers ascribe to ' the men of the great svnagogue, implies for the most part a comparatively late and false conception of the character of that sup- posed body, ^^hat ancient tradition has to say about it remains well within the limits of time assigned to it by criticism. In Daba B. 14^ 15^, ' the men of the great synagogue ' have assigned to them a place immediately before Ezra ; they write Ezekiel, the Uodecapropheton, Daniel, and Esther. When, therefore, Ezra had con- tributed his share (l^zra and Chronicles), forming the closing portion of the series of the twenty-four t)ooks, the canon was forthwith complete. It is evident (i) that here the activity of ' the men of the great synagogue ' docs not extend below Ezra's time; and (2) that it extends only to four books, not to the whole canon. Therewith the absolute untenableness of Levita's assertion becomes apparent.

20. 'Writing' of Books[edit]

Expedients have been resorted to in vain; as, for example, that 2T\-2, 'to write,' means in the Baraytha to ' collect, ' or to ' transcribe and circulate,' or both together (cp Marx, 41). 'The writer ' of the Mishna most certainly means the author of the books so far as there can be a question of authorship where, in the last resort, the author is the Holy Spirit. Of authorship nothing but writing is left. This, accord- ingly, is the sense assumed by Gemara and by rabbinical exegesis. What we are told concerning ' the men of the great synagogue ' is not more startling than it is to learn that Ilezekiah and his companions wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, books of which tradition is unanimous in saying that the last two were

t Over de mnnnen tier groote Synagoge (.\msterdam, 1876), translated into German liy K. BuJde in his edition of Kuenen's collected essays {Gcsamiiiflte Abhandl., 1894, p. \(i\ff.').

- Kuenen's proof has, in Great Britain, been accepted (among others) by Robertson Smith (OT/Cl:-) 169/), Driver (IntrodA^ xxxiii), and (at least in all essentials) by Ryle, to whose very care- ful Excursus A (239-272) the reader is especially referred. It has indeed found an uncompromising opponent in C. H. H. Wright , (^Koheleth, 5 ff". 475^), whose arguments, however, amount to little more than this the necessity (which in fact prodiiced the legend) for some corporate body by whom the religious duties of that time could have been discharged. This, however, cannot convert what is demonstrably legend into history. What- ever has to be conceded is granted already by Kuenen {Ges. Abh. I156, 158); and writers like Strack (PRE(% 18 310, foot- note*) are skilful enough to reconcile the demand for such 'organised powers' between Ezra and Christ with Kuenen's results. The most recent apology for the tradition is that of S. Krauss ('The Great Synod,' JQR, Jan. '98, p. 347^)- Of course he does not defend the theory of Elias Levita.

wholly, and the second in great measure, written by Solomon two centuries before Hezekiah. Here, in fact, it is the miraculous that is deliberately related. The meaning is that .Solomon had only spoken (cp i K. 5 12/. ) what is contained in these books, and that 200 years later, divine inspiration enabled the men of Hezekiah to write it out, and so make it into canonical books. By exactly the same operation ' the men of the great syna- gogue ' were enabled to write out what an Amos and a Hosea, a Micah and a Nahum, and so forth had spoken in the name of God. There is nothing to surprise us about such a view as this, if we remember what we have already found in connection with 4 Esdras (above, 14). In the present instance, indeed, it is only a portion of the OT that comes into question, not the whole mass as in 4 Esdras ; but, on the other hand, in 4 Esdras it is only the reproduction of books that had been lost that is spoken of, whilst here it is their very composition.'

21. Origin of fancy.[edit]

That stories such as these should ever have passed current as real historical tradition resting u[X)n facts is surprising enough. Almost more astonishing is it that such baseless fancies should not yet have l^een abandoned, definitely and for good, by the theology of the Reformed Churches.

Whether the tradition is genuine need no longer be asked. The only (juestion is, How was it possible that the Mishnic doctors, and perhaps those who immedi- ately preceded them, arrived at such a representation? This question in some cases already greatly exercised the exegetes of the Gemara, and even led them to attempted corrections; and Rashi [ob. 1105) gives a solution of some of the knottiest points which, if we are to believe Strack,- represents the view of the Baraytha. According to this explanation, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther did not write their own books, because they lived in exile, and outside the borders of the Holy Land it was impossible for any sacred book to be written. Even, however, if this view had some element of truth in it, it hardly meets the main point. The writing of each book the scribes, as was natural to their order, sought to assign to a writer like themselves, a veritable S(>/>her(see Scribe), and attributed the authorship of any book only to one to whom writing could be assigned on the authority of a proof text. In the case of books whose reputed authors could not be shown to have been sophh-Jm, the authorship was attributed to the writers of such other books as stood nearest to them in point of time.

That Moses was a scribe was held to be shown by Dt. 31 9 24 (the P.ook of Job also was attributed to him on account of its supposed antiquity), and the same is true of Joshua (Josh. 24 26). Similar proof was found for Samuel in i S. 10 25, and to him accordingly w.-is assigned, not only the book that bears his name, but also Judges and Ruth. In the case of David, if the words 1S^7 in 2 S. 1 18 were not enough, there was at all events sufficient proof in i Ch. 23^ and especially in 28 11 ; means were found also for reconciling the tradition that he wrote the whole Psalter with the tradition (oral or written) which assigned certain psalms to other authors. It was declared that he wrote the psalms, but '"1) 7j^ of those other writers. Of Solomon all that was said in i K. 5i2 was that he spoke, not that he tvrote ; but no one felt at any loss, for in Prov. 25 i the production of a portion of his Hook of Proverbs is attri- buted to the Men 0/ Hezekiah, king p/ Judah. These genuine scribes were utili.sed to the utmost. They had ascribed to them not only all the Solomonic books, but also the book of their contemporary I.saiah, although Is. 8 1 might well have been taken as saying something for the prophet himself. Whether in this in.stance some special cause contributed to the result, or whether it was merely that prophet and scribe had at any cost to be kept .separate, it is impossible to .say. For Jeremiah, the one prophet in the narrower sense of the word amongst those who are named, Jer. 36 spoke too distinctly to be ignored ; that Kings also should have been attributed to him is at once .suffi- ciently explained by 2 K. 24 i8, and chap. 25 compared with Jer. 52. Next in order as biblical authors come ' the men 0/ the great synagogue,' who, as contemporaries of Ezra the scribe /ar excellence (himself also one of their number) but at the same

1 That the two legends have an intimate connection is by no means improbable.

2 Op. cit. 418, with the quotation there given ; cp also Ryle, 263/

time also as sif^atories of the art in Nch. 10 i, were expressly called to this. Why K/ckicI (the Ncrilw, if any scrile there was aniunk; the pruphets), to whom the act of wntint; is re{>catc(lly attribtitcU (:)7 16^ 43"). hould not have heen credited with his own hook, may t>crhaps he rightly explained by Kashi. The twelve prophets could not have written severally their own books, fwcause all the books together form (see g 6) biit one book (a somewhat different turn is Kiven to this in Kashi), and as the latest of them belonged to the period of the great syna- gogue, and, indeed, according to tradition, were actually memljcrs of that body, the assignment of the authorship to it presented no difficulty. Finally Daniel and Esther, regarded as books of the Persian period, easily fell to their domain. Kzra, with his account of his own time, closes the series. Some explanation is needed of the fact that whilst ' the genealogies in Chronicles down to himself (this is no doubt the easiest explanation) also arc assigned to Kzra, no account is taken of the remaintler of that work. The most likely reason is that the main portion of Chronicles was regarded as mere repetition from Samuel and Kings, the origin of which had been already explained.

It is not of the slightest importance to consider how far this attempted explanation of the origin of the various books is in agreement with the real thought of the Baraytha ; in any case it remains pure theory, the pro- duct of rabbinical inventiveness, not of historical tradi- tion. Apart from a fixed general opinion about certain individual l)ooks and alx)ut the Pentateuch, the tangible outcome of the lx;liefs of the whole period with which we are dealing is that the canon was held to have been closed in the time of lizni. The theory upon which this belief proceeded will occupy us later ( 44/ ).

22 Scientific method[edit]

As against this congeries of vague guesses and abstract theories, science demands that we should

'^^^"^'"'^ ^^'^^ ^^o^^ separately, and J endeavour, with the evidence supplied ^ by itself, and with continual reference

to the ixxly of literature as a whole, to ascertain its date and to fix its place in the national and religious develop- ment of the Jews. This is the task of ' special introduc- tion ' ; but its results must always have a direct bearing on the history of the canon. This history must give close attention also to all the external testimonies relative to the formation and to the close of the canon, and, after weighing them, must assign to them their due place. Above all, it must trace out all general opinions and theories, such as we have been considering, ascertain their scope and meaning, and satisfy itself as to the period at which they arose, and as to their influence on the formation of the canon. In so far as we succeed in these endea\ours, we shall arrive at a relatively trust- worthy history of the canon.

1 W. J. Reecher (see below, 75) offers a solemn protest against the fundamental proposition of this article (as of all modern discussions of the subject) a triple canon, collected and closed in three successive periods. He denies that there is any evidence of a time when the Law alone was regarded as canonical, or of a time when the Law and the Prophets stood in authority above the Writings. He denies that the other OT writings were originally regarded as less authoritative than the Penta- teuch. He sees in the canon of the OT an aggregate of sacred books growing gradually and continually to a definite time when the part written latest was finished and the collection was deemed complete. Law [or rather. Message], Prophets, and Writings are nothing but three different names for the same books e-g., the prophetic writings. We are not told how these terms came to he the names of three different parts of this collection. The fundamental fact that the Law alone was promulgated and m.ide authoritative by Ezra and Nehemiah, IS obscured by Heecher by the .statement that the term ' book of Moses ' is applied to an aggregate of sacred w'ritings including more than the Pent.iteuch. His only proof is Ezra (5 18, where ' we are told that the returned exiles set up the courses of the priests and Levites, "as it is written in the book of Moses." The Pentateuch contains nothing in regard to priestly or Levitical courses. Possibly the reference is to written precepts now found in i Chronicles.' Beecher does not translate accurately. The text runs: 'they set up the priests in (by) their courses and the Levites in (by) their divisions. This means that the priests and the Levites are set up ' as it is written in the book of Moses' ; but it does not necessarily mean that their courses and divisions were based on the same authority. Beecher never mentions the fact that the Samaritans accepted only the Law (see below, g 25), nor does he investigate what gram of truth is contained in the same statement as to the Sadducees (see below, g 38), or consider the reason why the T.aw is wanting in 2 Mace. 2 13 (see below, g 27). On the other side, it may be hoped that he will find the difficulty caused by the Book of Joshua, a difficulty greatly exaggerated by himself, removed (in fact turned into a nelp) in g aSyi of this article, written two ye.-irs before his paper was published. This is only one of many instances. The theory of the triple canon of the OT, based on incontestable facts, is not as mechanical as Beecher repre- sents it. It is able to satisfy every demand for organic growth in the collection of O T writings. Beecher's paper (a total failure, it seems to the present writer, in the m.-iin point) may do much good in cautioning against too mechanical a concep- tion ; but it did not furnish to the present writer any occasion to alter the views develo[)ed in this article.

III. History of the OT canon.[edit]

(i) The first canon: the Law.[edit]
23. The Torah.[edit]

Whatever difficulties we may have in dealing with the later stages of the history of the canon and with its close, there is no obscurity alMUt its com-

'"*^"'^--";'^"'- 1' ^^^ '"deed by those ' men of the grtmt synagogue, to whom orthodoxy assigns the close of the canon, that its founda- tions were laid, in the clear daylight of well-authenticated history. Front the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month of the year 444 B.C. onwards, Israel possessed a canon of Sacred .Scripture. It was on this day that the great popular assembly described in Neh. 9/. solemnly pledged itself to 'the Hook of the Law of Vnhw6 their God (83), ' which had been given by the hand of Moses the servant of God ' (IO30), and had been brought from Babylon to Jerusalem shortly before by Ezra the scrilx: (Ezra 76 11 14 Neh. 8i/. ). In virtue of this resolution the said law-book at that time became canonical ; but only the law-book.

.Already, indeed, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, between 623 and 621 B.C., there had been a solenni act of a similar character, when the king and people pledged themselves to the law-book that had Ixren found in the temple, the 'book of the covenant' (2 K. 2:i). The entire editorial revision of the liooks of Kings, and especially the express references to the law-lx>ok(i K. 23 2 K. 2825, and above all, 2 K. 146 compared with Dt. 24 16), clearly prove that it had canonical valitlity during the exilic period, whilst the book of Malachi (cp esp. 'l^ff. 85 8^ 22) shows that also in the post- exilic period down to the time of Ezra it continued to hold this place in Jerusalem.' The critical lalxiurs of the present century, however, have conclusively estab- lished that this first canonical book contained simply what we now have as the kernel of our Book of Deutero- nomy.

24. Its extent.[edit]

The law canonised in 444 was a very different document. The only possible question is whether it was the entire Pent;\teuch as we now have it, or only the Priestly Writing, the latest and most extensive of the sources which go to make up the Pentateuch. The latter is, so far as we can at present see, the more likely hypothesis. In that case what happened in 444 B.C. was that the Deuterononiic Law, which had until then ruled, was superseded by the new Law of Ezra. A determination of this kind, however, was unworkable in view of the firm place which the older book that had been built up out of J V. and D ^ had secured for itself in the estimation of the people. Accordingly, the new law was revised and enlarged by the fusing together of the Priestly Writing and the earlier work, a process of which our Pentateuch, the canon of the Law, was the result.

26. Samaritan Torah.[edit]

This last stage was most probably accomplished in the next generation after that of Ezra, and completed before 400 B.C. We have e\ itlence of this in the fact that the schismatic coninnmity of the Samaritans accepts the entire Pentateuch as sacred. It is true that the solitary historical account we possess (Jos. Ant. xi. 72-84) places the separation of this community from that of Jerusalem as low down as the time of Alexander the Great (about 330 B.C. ) ; but the cause that led to

1 The reasons for saying that the references in Malachi are to Dt. and not to Ezra's law-book cannot be given here (see Now. AV. Proph. 391 ; but cp Mai.achi).

3 On this and on the larger critical question cp Hexateuch.

the separation the expulsion of the high priest's son, the soii-in-law of Sani)allat, who founded the community and sanctua.;.' of the Samaritans is rather, according to Neh. 1828, to be referred to the period of Nehemiah (about 430 B.C.). It has already been mentioned ( 19) that Jewish chronology has dropped a whole century and a half, -o bringing the periods of Nehemiah and Ale.\ander into immediate juxtaposition ; and this is the explanation of the confusion found in Josephus. We may suppose that Ix'fore the final separation of the Samaritans there elapsed an interval of some decades which would give ample time for the completion of the Law.^ This does not e.xclude the possibility that adjust- ments may have been made at a later date between the Samaritan Pentateuch and that of Jerusalem, or that later interpolations may have found their way into the Samaritan law. The compass of the work, however, must have remained (to speak broadly) ^ a fixed quantity, otherwise the Samaritans would not have taken it over.*

26. Torah = entire canon.[edit]

At the same time the Samaritan canon, which contained nothing but the (complete) law, is our oldest witness to a period during which the canon consisted of the Law alone, canon and Law being thus coextensive conceptions. If alongside of the Law there had been other sacral writings, it would be inexplicable why these last also did not pass into currency with the Samaritans. There are other witnesses also to the same effect. The weightiest lies in the simple fact that the name Torah or Law can mean the entire canon, and be used as including the Prophets and the Writings. We find it so used in the NT (Jn. IO34 I234 l.'jzs I Cor. 1421), in the passage already cited from 4 Esdras (142o), and, at a later date, in many passages of the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Rabbins (cp Strack, 439). This would have been impossible if the words 'canon' and 'law' had not originally had the same connotation, other books afterwards attaining to some ^^^""^ '^^ '^"^ sanctity of the Law.

27. 2 Maccabees[edit]

The same thing is shown by an often-quoted and much-abused passage in 2 Macc. (213). There we read that Nehemiah, in establishing a library, brought together the books concerning the kings and prophets (to. trepl tuiu ^aaiX^uv /cat Trpo(p7jTuiv) and the (i)ocms) of David (to. toD AaviS) and the letters of kings concerning consecrated gifts (to the temple : ^TricTToXas ^aaiXeijjv wepi avadefidruiv). The passage occurs in a letter from the Jews of Palestine to their com- patriots in Kgypt, and is an admitted interpolation in a book which is itself thoroughly unhistorical ; it is thus in the highest degree untrustworthy (cp MACCABEES, Second, 7). As evidence of what could be believed and said at the time of its composition, however, in the first century B.C., it is unimpeachable. When we find the Former and Latter Prophets and the Psalms catalogued as forming part of a library, and, alongside of them and on the same level, letters of kings (heathen kings of course), it is clear that there is no idea of sacro-

1 This explains why the Book of Nehemiah closes with the expulsion of the son-in-law of Sanhallat, but says nothing as to the setting up of the temple and church of the Samaritans. There is no occasion for scepticism as to the entire story in Josephus (as in Kautzsch, PKEi"^), art. ' Samariter,' 343/;).

2 See below, g 37.

3 Against the completion of the law at this date Duhih (/esai'a, iSgz, p. vyC) urges objections. He thinks that as late as the time of the Chronicler (third century B.C.) the so-called Priestly Document had not yet been fused with J E and D ; for the intention of the Book of Chronicles is, in his opinion, to continue the Priestly Document (which comes down only to the end of Joshua), not the older work embracing the Book of Kings, which indeed it sought to supersede. Neither intention, however, can be attributed to the Chronicler. In fact, he begins with the creation, his method being to write out at full length the genealogies from Adam downwards, taking them from the work that lay before him (JED P). Since, however, he is writing a history only of Jerusalem and the temple, he passes over all that does not relate to this. At the same time, even if the Chronicler had used nothing but P, this would not prove more than that, after its fusion with the other sources, P continued to be used also separately for a long time.

sanct books. The Law is not mentioned in the same connection ; as the sacred canon, it receives a place to itself and has nothing to do with the library. Whether all the contemporaries of this author shared his view is another matter ; in any case, the possibility of such a view being held is proof of the original isolation of the Law. Moreover, it appears from this passage that at the time when it was written, or within the writer's circle, the legend of the closing of the canon by I'.zra can have teen prevalent only in the (narrower and historically much more accurate) sense that the canon of the Law re- ceived its validity as such by Ezra'saction. Thefact, more- over, that in the LXX the version of the Law appears to be distinctively an official work, not theresult of private enter- prise, confirms the inference already drawn from the exclusive attention given to the Law in the period repre- sented by Ezra.

(2) The second canon : the Prophets.[edit]
28. J. E. D.[edit]

The nucleus for a second canon was laid to the hand of the scribes of the fifth century in the very fact that the

  • canon of the Law had been set apart to a

place by itself. It is one of the certain results of the science of special introduction that the Priestly Document on which Ezra's reform rested, followed the history of Israel, including the division of Canaan, down to the end of the Book of Joshua : the portions derived from it can still be distinguished in our present Book of Joshua. The same holds good for J E D. We can go further. It may still be matter of dispute, indeed, whether the material for the subsequent books (Judges, Samuel, Kings) also was derived from J and E ; but so much is indisputably certain, that the Deuterononfic re- daction embraced these books also, in fact, the whole of the Former Prophets, and that at the end of Kings the narrative itself is from Deuteronomistic hands. As even now each of these books is seen to link itself very closely to that which precedes it, it follows that JED, ultimately at least, in the form in which the work was used in the fifth century, included the Law and the Former Prophets.

29. Pentateuch.[edit]

That the Law might attain its final form as a separate unity, therefore, it was not enough that P and JED should be worked up into a single whole. This whole must be separated from the history that followed it. How and when this was effected we can imagine variously. According to the view taken above, what is most probable is that in 444 the entire Priestly Writ- ing, including the closing sections relating to the entrance into Canaan and the partition of the country, was already in existence and canonized in its full extent.* Not until its subsequent amalgamation with the corre- sponding sections of J E D did the hitherto quite insig- nificant historical appendix to the 'law,' strictly so called, acquire such a preponderance that the division was found to be inevitable. It was made at the end of the account of the death of Moses, and thus a portion of the Priestly Writing also (as well as of J E D) was severed from the body to which it belonged.


1 A last trace of some reminiscence of this short period during which the Book of Joshua still belonged to the ' law ' may be seen in the Apocryphal Book of Joshua of the Samaritans.

30. 'Former Prophets'[edit]

In any case, however we may reconstruct the details, the great fact abides that, after the Law had been separated, there remained the compact mass of writings which afterwards came to be known as ' the former prophets,' a body of literature which take an exceptional position from the simple fact that it had once been connected with the sacred canon, and must necessarily have been prized by the community as a possession never to be lost.

31. 'Latter Prophets'[edit]

Equally certain is it that by far the larger proportion of the ' latter prophets ' was already in the hands of scribes of the fifth century. In these books God spoke almost uninterruptedly by the mouth of his prophets in itself reason enough for assiRning to thcin the attribute of hohncss. If, m^vcrthelcss, th(; hooks wi-n: not reckoned to the canon, the explanation is to be sou);ht in the practical character of the lirst canon : lO/ra gave to the community in the canon of the I^iw all that it letjuircd. It was not new when he gave it ; he only gave over again what G<xl had once already given through Moses to the people as his one anil all. If the {xxjple had remained true to this I^aw, not orly would they have escaped all the dis;isters of the past, but also they would never have needi-d new revelations from (jod through his prophets. These prophets contributed nothing new ; they were sent only to admonish the unfaithful people to observe the Law, and to announce the merited punishment of the imj)enitent.

32. Provisional[edit]

The Law thus had permanent validity, whilst the work of the prophets was transitory ; the Law addressed itself to all generations, the prophets each only to his own, which had now passed away. The generations that had sworn olx.'dience anew to the l.aw under K/.ra, therefore, had no need for the propliets. Should similar circumstances recur, it might Ix; ex- pected that Cjod would send prophets anevv ; but the prevailing feeling was, no doubt, that the time of un- faithfulness, and consequently of the prophetic ministry, had gone for ever.*

The view here set forth is that of the O T itself, pre- eminently that of the Deuteroiioniistic school, where it is constantly recurring. ^ Indeed, since the Deutero- nomic and the Priestly Laws alike, each in its own way, had assiniilated the results of the work of the prophets, this view must be called, from their point of view, the right one. Accordingly it has throughout continued to lie the view of the synagogue, as can be proved from many passages in the Talmud and the '"^'i'l'-=^^him.-'

33. Historical books ' prophetic'[edit]

It explains at the same why it is that the historical books (Joshua-Kings) are called 'prophets.' They speak just in the manner of the prophets of the unfaithfulness of past generations to the law, and of the divine means chiefly the mission of prophets used to correct this. Both relate in a similar way to the past. For the same reason the prophets, conversely, are called history ; for ' tradition ' in the sense of 'history' is what is meant by KnoScK {ash- lemtii), the Massoretic term for the canon of the prophets, the dj<<3j {nSi'iin), as a whole (cp further, Strack, 439).

34 Not yet canonised[edit]

We can thus very easily understand how it was that the Prophets could not be canonized simultaneously ^^'^'^ '^^ Law. To pledge jjeople to the P'^Pl^*-"'s '^'^^ not possible, and the obligation to the I^aw would only have been obscured and weakened by a canonization of the Prophets at the same time. The idea of canonicity had first to be enlarged ; it had to Ix; conceived in a more abstract manner, on the basis of a historical interest in the past, before the canonizing of the Prophets that is to say, their Ijeing taken in immediate connection with the Law could become possible.'

35 Freely edited.[edit]

Of course a considerable period of time must have been required for this ; and the same result follows from ^^^ established facts of 'higher criticism.' ^^ *^^ Prophets properly so called, not only are Joel and Jonah later than the completion of the Law, but also the older books, over wide ajeas of their extent, bear more or less independent

1 With every reservation let it \yc noted here that in Mai. 3 23 he promise is not of a new prophet, but only of the return of Klijah, an<i that in Zech. 13 2_^ to come forward as a prophet is to risk one's life.

2 Compaie also, however (especially), the confession of sin which in Nehciniah precedes the uking of the covenant (parucu- larly ?t/. 16 ff. 26 29 / 34).

.SeeWeW, 18/78/:

  • Cp the passage (2 Alacc. 2 lO, already spoken of, in which

such a historical interest appears, but leads only to the foundatioo of a library, not to the canonizing of its contents.

evidence of a seconilary literary .activity.' These pheno- mena are so manifold, and there are traces of periods so widely separated, that we must believe not a few generations to have borne a part in bringing the pro- phetical books to their present form. Yet these extensive additions and revisions, at least most of th(;m, must of course have taken place before the canoniz;ition.

36 Gap in tradition.[edit]

This obvious conclusion is indeed contradicte<l by the tradition of the synagogue, which tells us that the books ^ ^* P"P<^'s ^*'<^^" ritten by ' the men "/ "^"^ great synagogue ' on which view the canon of the prophets was already complete in 444 B.C. Nor does this assertion, the baselessness of which we have already seen, stand alone. It is backed by others. Josephus (c. Ap. 18) says e.\|)ressly that it was down to the time of Artaxer.xes, the successor of Xerxes (/.^., Artaxerxes I., Ix)ngimanus, 465-424) that the literary activity of the prophets con- tinued. The passage in the Mishna in which the un- broken chain of tradition is set forth {I'irki AbOth, 1 i) repn;sents the Law as having been handed down by the prophets to the men of the great .synagogue ; which again brings us to the same date, and dispenses with the need of any further testimony.

It is exactly this chain of tradition, however, that supplies the interval of time that we need. 1 he passage goes on to say : Simon the Just was one of the last survivors of ' the men of the great synagogue ' ; he handed on the tradition to Antigonus of Socho. by whom^ in turn it was transmitted to Jose b. Jo'czer and Jose b. Jolianan, the first of the so-called 'pairs.' That the chronology of this section leaves much to be desired is clear.-* It seems to be as good as certain, however, that the fourth of the five pairs lived about 50 B.C., the third about 80 B.C. The same ratio would bring us to somewhere alxjut 140 or 150 B.C. for the first ' pair,' whilst the time of Antigonus and Simon would fall about 200 B.C., or a little earlier. In that case, Simon the Just would Ixj the high priest .Simon II. b. Onias who is briefly mentioned by Josephus {Ant. xii. 4 10). The cognomen of 'Just,' however, is given by Josephus {Ant. .\ii. 25 4 i) to Simon I. b. Onias, who lived almost a century earlier, soon after 300. If we must consider that he is the Simon who is meant, it is clear that the alleged chain of ti.adition is defective in its earlier portion, only a single name having leachcd us for the whole of the third century. Further, .Simon the Just is the connecting link with ' the great syna- gogue,' and as the assembly that gave rise to this name was held in 444, there is again a gap, this time of a centurv', even if we concede that Simon reached a very advanced age.

The long interval between Smion the Just and 444 B.C., however, is not to be held as arising from a different view about the synagogue ; it is to be accounted for by the hiatus (already referred to. 19, 25) in the traditional chronology between Nehemiah and Alexander the Great, similar to that which brings Zcrub- ^^^' '"'" immediate relation with the "*^ '^ Fzra.'*

37 Activity in interval[edit]

It is within this vacant period that we must place those redactions, the fact of which has been so incontestably proved by critical inquiry. The main reason why the synagogue has no recollection of this period, is that during this time the activity of the scribes (with the history of which alone the chronology busies itself from Ezra onwards) had no independent life, but devoted itself almost exclusively to the .sacred writings of the past, and left its traces only there, so that whatever it

' This is true especially of Isaiah, Micah, and Zechariah ; but most of the other Ixjoks show the same thing in some degree. The (If^iails belong to the special articles.

2 ' i{y whom is plural according to the text, the reference including perhaps Simon the Just. Zunz (37 n.) would interpret ' from the successors of Antigonus, mediate or immediate ' ; but this is hardly permissible.

S See Schdrer, CJV 'i-i^i^ff.

< Cp also Jos. Ant. xi. i, with 7 i andS i.

accomplished was put to the credit of the earlier times. This holds good, in the first instance, of the Law, to which considerable additions were still made as late as the third century (see above, 25). Still more extensive was this activity in the case of the prophetical books ; it was now that they took their final literary shape. 1 The additions naturally corresponded to the thou;.;hts and wishes of the age in which they arose ; on the lines of older models, the elements of hope and of comfort received a nmch fuller development, and thus the prophets were made of practical interest for a present time that, contrary to expectation, had turned out badly.

38 Canonisation perhaps opposed[edit]

It is possible that we even possess a proof that the canonization of the prophets did not take place quite ^"^'3"' opposition and dispute, a

^^'"^ '" "^"" "' "P^bable. In the a ttd <^hurch fathers we meet with the very 

PP * definite assertion that the Sadducees had scruples about acknowledging any sacred writings (especially the Prophets) in addition to the Law.^ It cannot be supposed that there is here any confusion with the Samaritans, who are expressly named along with them as sharing the same view ; a somewhat easier view is that what is referred to is their rejection of the oral legal tradition. ^ Let it be borne in mind, however, that we here have to do with our best Christian authorities on matters Jewish Origen and Jerome, the former of whom was contemporary with the period of the Mishna. That neither the Mishna itself, nor yet Josephus, has a word to say on such a dangerous subject, is intelligible enough. It is, of course, not for a moment to be supjjosed even though this is suggested by some of the passages cited that the Sadducees re- jected the prophets, or, in other words, refused to recognise them as having Vx;en channels of divine communications. On the other hand, it is not difficult to believe that these conservative guardians of the old priestly tradition should have resisted the addition of a second canon to that of the Law, which until then had held an exclusive place. In doing so, they would only have been maintaining the position of 444 B.C., whilst in this, as in other matters, the Pharisees repre- sented the popular party of the time. The controversy about defiling the hands (M. Vadayim, 46) may have been a last echo of this.*

1 Cp We. //G i=;5^ 2nd ed. 190^; Montefiore, On\-in anii Crou'th 0/ A'f//ci<"i (////'. L,rt. 1892), 401 j: the assertion, frequently repeated in the tradition of the synagogue, that it was expressly prohibited to commit to writing the traditional law cannot of course, strictly speaking, be main- tained (cp Strack, art. 'Thalmud' in PRn 18 331 /^). Still it is not impossible that there lies at the bottom of it a true reminiscence. Hardly, indeed, such a one as Strack supposes (P- 3337^) ; but rather this : that the addition of all sorts of nm<ell<e to the canonical Law was definitely put a stop to, and that, as a reaction against this tendency to add, there arose, some time (say) in the course of the second century, a certain I reluctance to write the further developments of the law the Hal.'ikOth until at last the codification of the Mishna put an end to this.

2 Kyle's conjecture (p. 117) that the gradual admission of the Prophets to a place in the public reading of the synagogue pre- ceded and led to their canonization, rests unfortunately on an insecure foundation, as we do not know whether th,- Haphtara goes back to a sufficiently early date. The first mention of the public reading of the Prophets is in the NT (Lk. 4 i6_/C ; Acts 13 15 27), the next, in a very cursory and obscure form, is in the Mishna (Megilla, 846), and, very full and clear, in the Tosephta (/J//rf ///a, 4 [3], ed. Zuckermandel, 225^). This much may be taken for certain, that the reading of the Pronhets came in very considerably later than that of the Law. That what led to it was the destructive search after copies of the Law in the time of Anliochus Epiphanes (i Mace. 1 57) is pure conjecture. Even if proved it would be insufficient for Ryle's purpose. For the age of the HaphtSroth, see Zunz, $ /., Ryle, iidyC; and on the Haphtaruth in general, .see Schi'irer, 23797! It is necessary to raise a note of warning as to Gr.'itz, x'jbff.

3 See the passages textually quoted m .Schurer, 2342 : Orig. c. Cels. 1 49 (ed. Lommatzsch, 18 93); Comm. in Matth. 17, ch.ip. 35 yC on chap. 222931 /T (ed. Lomm. 4 166 169); Jer. Contin. in Matth. 22 31 /. (Vail. 7 i 179); conir. Luci/erianos^


. 223. /

1; Phitosi

'phumena, U 29 ; Pseudo-Tert. adv.

chap. 23 (v. 2 197) ; llier. chap. 1.

  • Vet in the last-cited passage there follows immediately :

' Prajlermitto Pharisa:os qui additamenta quaedam legis adstru- endo a Judacis divisi sunt.'

39 Inferior Limit = Ecclus.[edit]

Lastly, we must endeavour to fix an inferior limit for the date at which the prophetical canon was fixed. ^""^ ^^ literary close of the prophetical

'-oH^-<-;'i"..^^'-' fortunately have an ex- 

tcrnal testmiony almost three centuries older and much more exhaustive than 4 Esdras and Josephus, namely the hymn to the great men of the past with which Jesus b. Sira (Kcclesiasticus), in chaps. 44-50, concludes his didactic poem. From Enoch downwards all the righteous are panegyrised, exactly in the order in which they occur in the Law and the Former Prophets. The kings are treated quite on the Ueuterononiistic lines. David, Hezekiah, and Josiah receive unqualified praise ; Solomon is commended only half-heartedly, whilst Rehoboam is spoken of as a fool, and Jeroboam as a seducer. F^lijah and Elisha find their place in the series immediately after these two kings, whilst between Hezekiah and Josiah comes Isaiah.' Of him we are told in one and the same sentence what we read in chaps. 36-39 ( =2 K. 18-20), and that under mighty inspiration he foresaw the far future and ' com- forted them that mourn in Zion ' (cp 40 1 ). This proves that not only chaps. 36-39, but also chaps. 40-66, already were parts of the Book of Isaiah, and thus that the hist essential steps to its final redaction had been made (cp Che. Intr. Is. xviii. ). Still more significant is it that after Jeremiah (who is associated with Josiah, as Isaiah is with Hezekiah) and after I-^zekiel, the twelve prophets {o'l 8J}dKa irpo<}>riTai) are mentioned, and disposed of collectively in a single panegyric. Here already, that is to say, we have the same consolidation as we have seen ( 21) in the Mishna (where a single authorship in the persons of ' the men of the great synagogue ' has to be found for the one book of the twelve). We may be sure that Jesus b. Sira found the twelve books already copied upon a single roll, and thus in their final form. By his time the prophetic canon had been closed.*

The conclusion of this hymn (chap. ftO) answers the question as to the date of its author. It is the panegyric on Simon b. Onias who was high priest in Jesus b. .Sira's own day. In this instance, it is certainly not .Simon the Just (cp 36) that is intended, if it were only on account of the absence of the surname distinctively given in Josephus and the Mishna. The question is decided for Simon II. (circa 200) by the prologue of the translator, grandson of the author, who made his version later than 132 B.C. (see EcCLESiASTicu.s, S).-* We therefore conclude and the conclusion ajjrces wiih the course of the dcvdopmenl traced alx)vc that the pro|)hi'tic collection alreatly existed as such, pretty much in its present form, about the year 2oo B.C.'


1 The arguments for utter rejection of this statement can best be read in Winer, ///Fi?(3>2 353/ The view taken in the text seems to be shared by We. when he writes {f/G 251 ; 2nd ed. 2S6 ; 3ril ed. 297) : ' They (the Pharisees) stood up against the Sadducees for the enlargement of the canon.' Another view is expressed in /rra/.C) 514.

2 The precedence here given him has no bearing on the place assigned to his book in the Prophetic canon (cp above, 8). 1 1 is the chronological succession of the persons that is being dealt with.

3 The doubt raised (not for the first time) by Bohme (in ZATW ~ 2io ['87]) against the genuineness of 4!> 10a, where the XII are referred to, was excellently disposed of by Niildeke (ZA TII^S 156 ['88]), by the evidence of the Syriac translation (which rests immediately on the Hebrew), and by showing that in T. loi^, according to Cod. A and others, the correct reading is the plural napeKa\eiTav (followed by yap instead of Se), and iKvTpMO-aino, so that 10* refers not to Ezekiel but to the XII. Another_ circumstance ought to be noted. If the praise of Ezekiel is completed in v. By?, it agrees in length and substance exactly with that of Jeremiah in v. 7, with that of Hezekiah (apart from Isaiah) in 4824/r, and finally with that of the XII, if V. 10 is taken as applying wholly to them. To place 10* before loa as Zockler {Die Apokryphen lies AT, etc., 1891, p. 3487?) silently does is quite inadmissible. To all this must now be added the testimony of the lately discovered Hebrew. The genuineness of 48 23 J^. is doubted by Duhm (Jesaja, 1892, p. vii), but without any reasons being given. On p. xiv. he appears to be able to accept the genuineness.

4 The arguments by which J. Hal^vy {P.tude sur la partie du texte Hcbreu de t Eiclesiastique reccmment decou-jcrte, 1897) endeavours to prove that Simon I., the Just, is the hero of chap. 50, have failed to convince the present writer. Still it should be kept in mind that even if Halivy were right the date of Ecclesiasticus ought not to be pushed back more than fifty or -sixty years. The author may be describinj; in his old age remembrances from his early youth. See Kautzsch in StK'r, 1808, p. 198/

40. Other evidence[edit]

Notable reasons for the same conclusion are suppHed by the Mook of Danicl ( written aliout 164 B. c. ). In the first plaie there is a reason of a ixjsitive character : , y_, ^^^. ,jj j^.^ ^^u /. cited as oncca ('in the [Holy] Scriptures'). Of greater weight, howrver, is a negative reason : the Hook of Daniel itself found a place not among the Prophets, but among the Writings. Other reasons for this niight Ix; conjectured ; but the most probable one still is that at the time of its recognition as canonical the canon of the I'rophets had in current o|)inion l)een already definitely completed. The time of atlmission, how- ever, nmst lie taken to h.ive been considerably later than the dale of com|X)sition (164 B.C.), and so this evidence does not go for much. Still less important is the further fact, that the work of the Chronicler (com- posed during the first half of the third century) is not included among the I'ormer Prophets. Its S[)ecial character as a Midrash to already accepted biblical lx)oks must long have prevented its attaining the dignity of canonization ; but a further circumstance helped to impede its recognition. The immediate contiguity of the Former I'rophets and the Pooks of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (brought to their final form at an early date) must comi)aratively .soon have c(jme to be regarded as fi.xed and unalterable.*' whilst, on the other hand, to apjx'nd Chronicles to the later prophets w.is plainly imjx)ssible.

41. Prophetic canon subordinate.[edit]

It remains, then, that the completion of the n;//<r//// we nii_L;ht almost sav also of the canon oi the Prophets ) ^*^!Lj" /="'-^'^ ^f '^'^ ^hi'-'l ^ century. This, however, does not yet v, ' . ,. . . \]^ "' ^l ^" altogether unambiguous rindmgwuh reference to their 'canonisation. ' It is only misleading if we allow ourselves, with- out (jualillcation, to carry back the idea of ' canoniciiy,' in the fulIy-develo|X'd form which it finally reached, to the earliest beginnings of the formation of a canon. It was impossible for the Projihcts ever to receive a canonical value in the .same sense in which this was given to the Law ; the subordinate character of the Pro- phetic canon remains fixed for all coining time.^ Holi- ness was, and continued to be, a relative conception, and we do not need to give to the designation d'tSCH in Dan. 82 the same fulness of meaning that it has in the Talmud. The gulf lx.>tween the Law and all the remain- ing Ixioks could be bridged only artificially, and we know with certainty that the bridging idea the idea of a property conmion to all holy Ixxjks, that of ' defiling the hands ' was an invention of Pharisaic scholasticism, withstood by the Sadducees even after the destruction of Jerusalem (YaJ. 46). Until this bridge had been securely constructed there was no idea of a canonicity that included all three portions equally. This is proved by a fact to which we have already referred, the Saddu- cean recognition of nothing but the Law. liefore a definitive union of the Prophetic canon with that of the


1. The possibility of much later additions to the books admitted to this canon is unfortunately by no means excluded, as is sufficiently evidcnceil by the simple fact that even the Pentateuch continued to be added to long after its canonization (see 37). Thus there is nothing in the nature of the case to prevent us from attributing the appendices to Zechariah (ch.ips. 9-14) to the later Maccabean period, as We. {f/G 228, n. 2, 3rd ed. 274, n. 2) appears to do (cp Zkchariaii ii.), or admitting the interpo- lation of p.iss.iges in Isaiah (already enlarged by the addition of chaps. 40t>f!) .xs is indicated by Duhms results. In these cases, however, we are justified in demanding very conclusive arguments.

- Cp, for example, Duhm, o/. cit. vi. n. i.

S llence also the exclusion o:' the Book of Ruth.

  • As to this cp the very significant passage (Mt^Ua, aja)

quoted in Marx, 39, n. 3.

I^w could be eflfected the way had to be prcjjared by a continually rising appreciation of the proplietic literature, and by an ever-growing conception of its s;mctity. To this result the Maccalx^n jxrritxl must unquestionably have contributed much. Such [lassages as i Mace. 4 46 5*27 l-l4 ami the .Song of the Three C hildren (i'. 14 ; cp Ps. 749) show not only how far jx-ople then felt them- selves to be removed from the prophetic times, but also how highly those times were thought of. .Stiil we must lx,'ar in mind the pas.sage in 2 Mace. ('213) already referred to ( 27), which seems to show that, even in the last century B.C., it was still possible to six;ak of the Prophets and of profane writings, in the same breath, as jxirts of the same library.

42. Prophets preceded Hagiographa[edit]

On the other hand, it can Ixi shown that there was once a tim<! in which the Prophets, but not the Hagiographa could be spoken of along with ^^ "'^ '^ included among the sacred

^^'""Ks- -^s the name ' the Law * can o o P ijg uj^.(| (Q designate the whole tripartite canon (see alxjve, 26), so also ean the double name ' the Law and the Prophets.' (Cp, in NT, .\lt. 617 7 12 Lk. 16 16 29 31 .Acts 2823, and, in the tradition of the synagogue J^cs/i /nish-Shann, 46 ; Jiabu Ii. 8 14 ; Talm. J. Me:{iiLi, ,3 i ; also Hiiha Ii. 12, t>).^ It m.iy also be pointed out that the name Kabbald ('Tradition') in- cludes the Prophets and the Writings (cp the numerous passages in Zunz, 44 n. a), but the synonymous e.vpres- sion Ashlcm/a (see alxjve, 33), if we are correctly informed (Strack, 439), the prophets only.

(3) The third canon: the Hagiographa.[edit]
43. Distinction between them.[edit]

Here, again, there is no possibility of doubt that, at the time ^f""/'^*-' prophetic collection was !=^^ "'"^^^ ^ ^'^*'^' ^^ now find in our third canon was already in existence, and yet it did not gain admi.ssion into the collection and found no place in the canon of that day. At bottom the reason is self-evident ; it was a collection of pro])hets that was Ix-ing made, a collection, that is to say, of writings in which G(k1 himself spoke, enforcing the Law by the mouth of his messengers. Such other writings as were then e.vtant did not profess to be m.T CN3 ( ' oracle of Yahwe,' i:V ' thus saith the Lord '), the immediate utterance of the (io<l of Israel. One of them, indeed, the earlier nucleus of the Psalter, was in use as the hymn-book of the Temple services ; but to have admitted it into the canon on that account would have Ix-en very nnich the same .is if now a Christian church were to place its hynmal among its symlx)lical books. There was necessary, .tccordingly, a further (cp S 34) extension of the idea '.Sacred Writings' or (using the word with caution) of the idea of the 'canon,' and (so to say) a reduced intensity, Ix'fore any further books could find admission, not of course into either of the canons already existing, but into a third, suborilinate in rank to these. It is obvious, further, that again a con- siderable period must have elapsed before this extension of the idea could make w.ay, and thus render jxjssible the admission of Ixxiks which, at the time when the projjhetic canon was closet!, were still unwritten.

44 End of prophetic period[edit]

Besides the (obvious) condition of a lx)oks having a religious character, the only remaining condition demanded by the test implied in the expanded idea of canon is the condition

^ -j^j of date. Those lxx)ks were accepted

  • which were considered to have been

written during the prophetic periixl.

Our earliest witness to this is Josephus. In the p.ossage already referretl to above (c. Ap.\), after setting forth his tripartite division of the sacred writings (5-^-13-^4), he goes on to s.ny : OTO hi '.KprcL(ip(ov M'XP' <'" *<*' 'i^'^' ]^povov ytypairrai /liy ixaa-ra, nia-rtiu^ i' oi'x Ofioiat rifiuirai Ton npi) avnuf ita rb fti| yevfo^ai ttji' Tuif irpo</>ino' atcpi^TJ {lajox'if. I hat is to s.iy, the closes with

th Artaxerxes (Ezra and Nehemiah),

1 Oratz, isoyr, wishes to exclude the Hagiographa in both cases. It must be concealed that the evidence for their inclusion cannot be regarded as being so certain in the case of the ' Law and the Prophets ' as it is m that of the ' Law ' alotie.

and canonicity (even in the case of non-prophetical books) is guaranteeil only by coiitemporaiieouMness with the continuous series of the prophets. This view is confirmed by the Talmudic tradition. Tos. Vadayim, 2 13 (p. 683) rules that ' books such as Ben Sira [Ecclesiaslicus] and all books written -jS'iti Jk30 do not defile the hands.' This i;S'K1 JK3p /.^., 'from that time forward 'is the standing expression for the cessation of the prophetic period. Corresponding with it is the other phrase ly )K3 (' ""til then '), denoting this period. Further confirmation IS found in San. 28/1 : ' Books like Ben Sira and similar books writ ten />y; 7i</ ///<> omvar./s may be read as one reads a letter ' (cp on this, Buhl, 8 a). The point of time is fixed by a passage in Sfder otam rahba, 30, .-is the time of .Mexander the Mace- donian : ' I'he rou^^h he-goat (Dan. 821) is Alexander the Macedonian, who reigned twelve years ; until then the prophets prophesied by the Holy .Spirit \ from that time/ortvardmcXvn^ thine ear and hearken to the words of the ivise.^ If Alexander the Great here takes the place of Artaxerxes in Josephus, the explanation is simply that, according to the Jewish chronology and cotiception of history, H.-iggai and Zechariah, Ezra and Malachi all lived at the same time, which is contiguous with that of Alexander.2

We now know, therefore, that it is not out of mei^ caprice, but in accordance with a settled doctrine, that 4 Esdras 14 and Baba Bathra \^a declare all the canonical books to have been already in existence in Ezra's time. The time limit was a fixed one ; difference of view was possible only with regard to the person of the author. From this doctrine we deduce the proposition : Into the third canon, that of the Hagiographa, were received all books of a religious character of which the date was believed to go back as far as to the Prophetic period, that is, to the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly.

45 Reason of limit[edit]

The reason for the setting up of such a standard is easily intelligible. Down to the time of the Great-Assembly, the Spirit of God had been operative not only in the Law but also outside of it, namely in the Prophets ; but ' from that time onwards ' the Law took the command alone. ' Until then ' it was possible to point to the presence of the factor which was essential to the pro- duction of sacred writings, but ' from that time onwarils ' it was not. Hence the conviction that the divine pro- ductive force had manifested itself even in those cases where the writing did not claim to be an immediate divine utterance ; but only down to the close of the prophetic' f)eriod. The proposition we have just formulated is sutticient to explain the reception or non-reception of all the books that we now have to deal with. Job was received as, according to general belief, a book of venerable antiquity ; Ruth .as a narrative relating to the period of the judges, and therefore (as was invariably assumed as matter of course in the case of historical narratives) as dating from the same time ; the Psalms as broadly covered by the general idea that they were ' David's Psalms' ; Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes as resting on Solomon's name ; Lamentations as rest- ing on that of Jeremiah ; Daniel as a prophet of the Persian period (which in its whole extent was supposed to fall within the prophetic age) overlooked in the earlier collection. The same consideration held good for Esther, regarded as a history book. At the close comes the Book of Ezra separated from the general work of the Chronicler-' which, in its account of the Great Assembly, contained the original document on the close of the Prophetical period and so, ;is it were, puts the

4fi AnnAn colojjhon to the completed canon. Had dkes '^'^^' ^'"^ "'^' *^*" Chronicles/..?. , the first part of the Chronicler's work been in- corporated with the canon simultaneously with the incorporation of its second part, the Rook of Ezra, the two would never have been separated, and even arranged' in an order contrary to the chronological (cp Historic.m. LiTEUATURK, 15). We may therefore say with all confidence that Chronicles did not come in till after-

1 ' The wise ' are the (pKJst - canonical) scribes ; cp Weber,

121^

- Cp copious proofs for this point, already more than once touched on above, in Marx (see below, \ 75), 53, n. 4. 3 Cp Chronici.es, i 2 and Ezka, f 8.

wards, as an appendix to the canon. The reason for its original exclusion w.as no doubt the consciousness that, strictly, it was but a Midrash to other canonical books. The second part of the Chronicler's work, once canonized, tended to take the other along with it ; possibly too the Book of Chronicles may have been helped by the minute- ness with which it goes into the temple service a feature to which at a later date, in the Massoretic arrangement (see above, 8), it was indebted for a first place among the Hagiographx From this one certain case, the last, may be inferred the possibility that other books also, especially the immediately preceding ones ( Ezra, Esther, Daniel ; perhaps also Ruth : see above, 9), were only gradually added, one by one, to the third canon by way of appendices. At least, they all of them have the appearance of being, as to their contents, appendices to the two halves of the Prophetic canon, whilst the remain- ing si.x books form a class by themselves. W'e are not, however, in a position to speak with certainty here.

47 Excluded books.[edit]

Conversely, all other writings, so far as not excluded by reason of their language or some exception taken ^^ ^^^^^ contents, may safely be supposed ^ have been excluded either because,

manifestly and on their own confession, they did not go back to the Prophetic time, or because their claim to do so was not admitted. ^ The first-men- tioned reason must have been what operated in the case of works of so high a standing as i Slacc. and Ecclesi- asticus ; as instances of the application of the second principle, we may take (in contrast to Daniel) the books of Baruch and Enoch.

48 Date inferior limit.[edit]

The attempt to determine the date at which the

canon of the Hagiographa, and with it that of the cniir*-" OT, was finally closed, is again surrounded with the vcrv greatest difficulty. Let us, to begm with, fix the terminus ad quem. It is given us in the passages, frequently referred to already, in Josephus {c. Ap. 1 8) and 4 Esdras (chap. 14), where the entire corpus of the or Scriptures, in twenty-two or twenty-four books, is set apart from all other writings. As to the extent of the canon, unanimity had been reached by at least somewhere about the year 100 A.D.

49. Superior Limit.[edit]

For a superior limit we shall have to begin where our investigation as to the prophetic canon ended with the son of Sirach. In his hymn he commemorates, as the last of the heroes of Israel, Zerubb.abel and Joshua as well as Nehemiah, thereby conclusively showing that he was acquainted with the work of the Chronicler (49 ii_^ ). Moreover, he makes use of p;issages from the Psalms. Neither fact proves anything for a third canon ; the fact th.at he found his ideal and patterti in the prophets is rather against this (2433: ert hiha.(SKO.\ia.v wj- irpo- ip-qreiav iKX^^)- The prologue of his descendant (later than 132 B.C.) shows still more unmistakably th.at no definite third canon w.as then in existence, even although already a certain number of books had begun to attach themselves to the L.aw and the Prophets. Three times he designates the whole aggregate of the literature which had been handed down, to which also his ancestor h.ad sought to add his quota, as 6 vouos /cat oi rpoip^at. Kal tA dWa ri kut' ai'ToiH iiKoXovdTjKSra ; 6. y. k. ol irp. K. TO. dXXa wdrpia ^i^Xia ; 6. v. k. al irpo<f)rjT(iai (oi xpofprJTai [C]) K. TO. XoiirA n^v ^t^Xiwv. What is thus designated by three different indetermin.ate expressions cannot have lieen a definite collection. That of these books, in whole or in part, there were already Greek translations we can gather from the Prologue ; but we get no help either from this or from the LXX generally.

1 ' Some found their way in, others not, on grounds of taste the taste of the period,' says Wcllhausen (Kin/.l*' 557, 6th ed. 512). No doubt considerations of taste must have had influence on the decisiori whether the books in question came up to the st.indard ; but it was the doctrine that formally decided.

2 As to Ecclesiasticus note the express testimony of Tosephta and Gemara (above, 44X

In I Marc. 7 16/ we fui'l I's. 79 2 / cited with the formula <cara TOf \biyo fle (TOi>t X^TOit oOi [A]) lypa^t, in other words., a* Holy Scripture. In 259/ I^aiiicl and his three friends are named as patterns in immediate connection with I-^lijah, David. Caleb, and others ; 1 54 seems to cjuotc Daniels prediction ( Dan. 927). We here see, somewhere about the close of the second or the beginning of the last century H.c. the Hook of iMniel for the first time coming into evidence as a fully ac- credited authority we could not possibly have expected so to find it at any earlier date.

50. Philo[edit]

Unfortunately these testimonies, such as they are, are foUowetl by a very wide hiatus. Fhilo (ob. circ. 50 A. i>. ) is our next resort; but, great as is the extent of his writings (all proceeding uncompromisingly on the allegorical method of biblical interpretation), they do not yield us much that is satis- factory in our present inquiry.* Nowhere do we find a witness to a tripartite canon." Of the canonical books he nowhere quotes llzj,'kiel, any of the five Megilloth, Daniel, or Chronicles.' The blank is a great one. Still we may find some compensation in the fact that at least the IJook of Kzra is cited with the solemn formula applicable to a divinely inspired writing.* A certain conclusion as to the incompleteness of the canon cannot be draw n from this silence regarding many txx)ks. On the other hand, real importance attaches to the following piece of negative evidence : Philo, although (as an Alexandrian) he must have Ijeen actiuainted with many non-canonical books, and indeed actually l>etrays such acquaintance, in no instance uses them in the same way as the canonical. This allows as probable the inference that a definitely closed canon was known* to him ; only we are not able to say from any data supplied by him what was the extent of that canon in its third part.

51. NT[edit]

Our next witness is the NT. In Lk. 2444 we have evidence of the tripartite division, for ' the psalms ' prob- '^'^'-^ stands a potiori for the whole of the third canon. I'xclesiastes, Canticles, E.sther, and lizra are not referred to at all. Of course here again nothing certain is to be inferred from the silence ; but, if other considerations came into play, this fact also ought to \x. taken into account. On the other side, the certain reference to Chronicles in Mt. 2:^35. Lk. 11 SI* is entitled to have weight. The quotation of Dan. 722 in i Cor. 62 also must ! referred to.

1 Cp Homemann {Obtervatioms ad illustraliontm etoctrinir de coHoru yr. ex /'hi/one, 1775, copious extracts from which are given in Eichhorn's hint.*** 1 123^). Till the appearance of Prof. H. K. Kyle's Phi/o and the Holy Scripture K^'i), the statements of Hurnemann had never been verified with sufticient care ; though, on the other hand, they had not in any point leen shown to l>e inaccurate. Prof. Kyle s results do not, however, differ much from those of Homemann.

'* Apart from De I' it. Lontemfil., f 3, probably a work of a much later time, (.'p Lucius, Die Tluraf>euten, 1879, and Schurer's review of Conybcare's Philo about the Contemplative Lite, TLZ, 20th July 1895.

  • That I Ch. 7 14 is quoted in the tract De rongr. qiurr. erud.

rni/ia, 8, is asserted b^ Hcrzfeld (CIV 3q6 (1B57I ; but cp also Kichter's edition of Philo, 1828), and has been taken over from him l>y all subsc(|uent writers ; but it is rather Cs enlarged form (enlareed perhaps from Ch.) of Gen. 45 20, which varies from Ch. Kyle (Philo. etc., p. 289) finds i Ch. 9 i /. quoted (De Prtem. et Porn. I 13, ii. 420); but there is very little likeness Ijetwecn the two pa.vsages (see, however, the next note). Of the minor prophets only Hosea, Jonah, and Zcchariah are made use of; but this guarantees the entire liodckapropheton.

  • Unless here (De con/. Linguarum^ i 28, 1/) the whole of

I Ch. 3 Ijc intended, rather than (as is universally assumed) Ezra 8 2 (see in iCh.3 22 the one descendant of David men- tioned in E?ra 8 2). Cp the plur. oi iui^axiain*^ .t.A. and c 0a(riA(ou( ^ifiAoif.

' IJy many the expression 'from ... to' there used is ctually taken to mean ' from the first book to the la.st lxx>k of the OT." TT)en the passage would prove the close of the canon with the Book of Chronicles, and, in fact, its close altogether ; but the expression may refer to the sacrilege implied in the locality of Zechariab's murder.

52 No decision, 2nd Cent BC[edit]

There thus remains a space of something like two centuries say from the end of the second century B.C. to about 100 A.I). within winch we are unai)ie to jxjint out .itiy sure indications of the close of the third canon.

Ryle <!' i73-^) thinks it can l^e made "' *"^ "^ ^""^y ^'^ '^"^'^ ' probability that the close took place as early as the second century B.C., between 106 and 105, the year of the death of John Hyrcanus II. His one p>ositive reason ' is that the civil wars and scholastic con- troversies of the last century B.C. must have withdrawn interest from such things and made impossible any union of schools or any public step that could alter the slittus quo. That there ever was a union of schools, however, wc have every reason to deny ; the extension of the canon w.is in all proljability only one of the internal affairs of the Pharisaic school (cp alxjve, 37). Prom this it necessarily follows that there is no question alxjut any public step being taken say a deliljcrate decision, reached once for all, or a decree of any authoritative assembly.

53. Mishna[edit]

We actually have express information, however, of such a decision at a much later time. It is obvious

^^'^* ^ ^"^ thing would have been 

neces.sary if a binding decision had al- ready lj<.'en long in exi.stence. Wc refer at present to the controversy of which we read in the Mishna ( Yad. 85 ; tp l.diiyoth, 53).

The general proposition there laid down runs as follows : 'All holy scrintures (cnpn 3ri;)2 defile the hands ' (cp alxjve, I 3); next follows the particular: 'Catiticlc-s and Ecclc->iaste defile the hands.' Then wc have the controversy. ' K. Juda said : Canticles indeed defiles the hands ; .-is regards Ecclesiastes opinion is divided. K. Jose said : Ecclcsiastci does not defile the hands, but as regards Canticles opinion is divided. K. Simon said : About Ecclesiastes the schojl of Shaniniai gives the laxer, the school of Hillel the severer decision (here compare the elucidation in liduyoth,!)-}, that according to the former (.Shammaij Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to the latter it does). K. Simon b. '.\z.-iy said : To me it has l<een handed down from the mouth of the seventy-two elders that, on the day on which K. Elitzer b '.A/arya was made supreme head, it was decided that (Ijoth) Canlicles and Ecclcsia.stes defile the hands. R. 'Akiba said : God forbid that there .should ever have been difference of opinion in Israel about Canticles, as if it did not defile the hands; for the entire world, from the l>eginning until now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to IsraeL For indeed (2) all .Scriptures (c'2in:) ^re holy (z:~p), but Canticles is holy of holies (z'tr\p tnp)- If people were divided in opinion, it was as to Ecclesiastes alone. R. Johanan b. Jehoshua, the son of K. 'Akiba's father-in-law, said : -As the son of 'Azay says, people were thus divided in opinion, and it is thus that the matter has been decided.'

54. Meaning of dispute.[edit]

It has be^n contended that the dispute here was not about the question of canonicity, Ixjth Uxjks Ijeing clearly included in the ojxrning sentences under the category of holy, and that the word ^^. .j^ preserve, lay aside, hide,' the technical exjjression for the treatment with which the boTiks in question were threatened, dfx-s not mc*an ' to pronounce ajjocryphal ' but only something like ' to exclude from public reading. Iloth contentions are incorrect. The word in question is not used v\ith reference to Fxxlesiasticus or other a[XKryphal works, simply h>ecause no one had ever sjxjken of canonizing them, and thus thcTe could not possibly be any (juesiion alxjut doing away with them or removing them. And that our passage certainly is discussing the question whether the two books are Holy .Scripture or not, is

1 A second argument adduced by Kyle, that ohuined by reasoning backwards from the position in Josephus, is toned down by Buhl (p. 27) to the more moderate view that ' the third part . . had already received its canonical completion before the Christian era."

  • By this we are certainly, in accordance with 82, to under-

stand the entire canon. On the other hand, the CZTS men- tioned later may mean merely the Hagiographa.

' One easily perceives that in point of fact here also the stricter school of^Shammai remained true to its reputation, and no less so the laxer school of Hillel.

  • The tract, Aboth de h'abti Nathan (chap. 1), as we saw

above (I 18), carries this decision back, as also in the case of

Ct

tity _

Cp Ryle, p. ,43^

Proverbs, to the time of 'the Great Synagogue.

' '.p especially Buhl, 7 / 26, and Ryle, 187 / On the other hand, Cheyne (OPi, 457) acknowledges that the queuioo ia that of canonicity.

made unmistakably evident by the words of R. 'Aklba. In this tinal stage of the development the question caiiniJt jjossibly be whether {x-'rhaps, though integral [jarts of Holy Scripture, they nevertheless do not defile tlie hands : it is established that ' all Holy Scriptures defile the hands.' Then follows the Mishnic dfcision that the books of Canticles and Kcclesiastes also belong to this class ; after this, the discussion which preceded the decision, and the grounds on which it was reached, are given.

55. 100 A.D.[edit]

In this connection the precise fi.xing of the day on which this decision was arrived at is important the day on which at Janmia (Yabna) R. Gamaliel . J J ^^.^^ incidentally deposed from his place as president of the court of justice, an incident for which we have also other early testimonies.^ This event certainly falls within the decades that immediately followed the destruction of Jerusalem whether so early as 90 A.D. (the usual assumption) is questionable, but will not in any case be very wide of the mark. This period, then, saw the settlement of a twofold controversy, which, as regards one half of it at least, had already occupied the schools of Hillel and Shammai about a century before. This last point is conceded even by a zealot like R. 'Aklba ; his unrestrained exaggeration as regards Canticles is only a veil to cover the weakness of his position.'^ We hear nothing of any decision of the question preceding that of Janmia. That, after the proceedings of that stormy day, the question should have been discussed again some decades later ( R. 'Akiba oh. 135), need not surprise us. No new decision is arrived at : the c|uestion is answered by a confirmation of that of Janmia. *

Thus, then, about the year 100 A. 11. there was still, as an unsettled controversy, the same cjuestion as to the canonicity of two books, which as regards one of them ( Ecclesiastes ; see Ecci,i:si.\STK,s, 3) had been a notorious point of difference between the two great schools of the Pharisees."* By that time, however,

1 For brevity"^ sake it will be enough to refer to the e.xceed- ingly careful histury of the activity of the scribes, with copious proofs, given in ,Sch;ircr (2 301^/.).

2 The remark has a wider application to rabbinical Judaism generally and the other Megilloth : cp We. EinlXM 554, 6th ed.

> The reader is referred to Buhl (28 ff.\ Wildeboer (58 ff.\ Kyle (192 _^), and the articles PuRiMand Nicanor for the later and less amply attested disputes about Esther, Pro\erbs, Ezekiel, and Jonah (mentioned in the order of the degree of their attestation). It is only in the case of the Book of Esther (q.v., 12) that such disputes can have been really serious. In the case of Ezekiel, there may be a genuine remin- iscence of the embarrassment caused to the .scribes by the discrepancies between the Law and Ezek. 40-48, perhaps al.so of the objections raised by the Sadducees on this account. In part at least, we must admit the truth of Strack's remark (p. 429) that 'in many cases the discussions leave one with the impression that the objections were raised merely that they mi;:ht be refuted." This impression, however, no way impairs that of the real seriousness of the decision of Jamnia. That the four books mentioned above are not named in }'</. 85 proves in any case that at that time serious objections to them were no longer entertained, and as we are here dealing only with the close of the canon, not with the individual books of which it was composed, this fact must .suffice for us.

  • This is not inconsistent with the fact (which we learn from

various sources) that Simon b. Shetah (who belonged to the third of the five ' pairs,' in the first half of the first century B.C.) quotes Eccles.T 12 as Holy Scripture (for details see Buhl, p. 157".). He represents the one side of the case. _ The subject is one that belongs to ' special introduction ' ; biit, in passing, the present writer may be allowed to express the view that, in the present text of Ecclesiastes, traces are to be clearly found of the assistance which it was found necessary to give, in order to secure for this book a place in the canon. In 12 10 it is testified of the preacher (nSnp) that he was a well-meaning and respectable man (of course otherwise unknown). The contradiction to 1 1, where he is represented as being 'the son of David,' 'king in Jerusalem,' is glaring. These words, as also 1 12 16, a good deal in 24-9 and perhaps also 7 15^ and certainly 12 11-14 are inter- polations, by means of which alone the reception of the book mto the canon was rendered possible. It is self-evident that Canticles also became a part of the canon, only by virtue of its superscription which ascribes it to Solomon. A valuable light is thrown on R. '.-^kiba's a.ssertion that Canticles had never been disputed, and at the same time a trustworthy evidence,

the question had long been (substantially) a settled one, as is shown by the passages <|uoted from Josephus and 4 Esdras ; settled, however, not by any single decision, but only by the gradual clearing up of public opinion. Of other books in addition to the twenty-four there is no question whatever, and as regards those two about which alone any difficulty is possible, common opinion came to be so decidedly in favour of what claimed to be the stricter but in reality was the looser opinion, that the zealot R. 'Akiba comes forward fanatically on the side of Hillel.

56. Result.[edit]

We may now venture to figure to ourselves what was the probable course of the development, and what the what the attitude assumed bv various sections of the community towards the decisive questions.

It is probable that among the Sopherim (professional students of Scripture) of the last century B.C., but without the co-operation of the Sadducean priestly nobility, there was gradually formulated a scholastic doctrine as to which of the many religious writings then current ^ could establish a just claim to a sacred char- acter. We have already seen by what standard the writings were judged. As this doctrine gradually took shape, unanimity was reached on every point except on a dispute with reference to two minor books, in which, as was natural, the victory was ultimately gained by the more liberal view. This doctrine of the Sopherim, as being the view of those who were the only qualified judges on the special subject, readily gained admission amongst such as were in doubt and sought to inform themselves.'-' Thus the learned Philo, though living in Alexandria, takes very good care not to con- travene the stricter practice ; what we know about the opposition offered to the books of Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Esther, even suggests the possibility (incapable of course of proof) that his silence about certain books (cp above, 50) really arises from a still greater strict- ness. -As a convert to Pharisaism, Josephus professes the school doctrine of his teachers with an emphasis all the greater because his own personal leanings were (perhaps) against such exclusiveness. On the other hand, though the doctrine made way, yet the majority of the people betook themselves quite naturally to the mass of apocalyptic and legendary literature, which, in the century immediately before and after the birth of Jesus, exercised a very great infiuence, and did much to prepare the way for Christianity. The formulated theory possessed obvious advantages, however, and the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem left the Pharisees in sole possession of the leadership of Israel. This is shown most clearly by 4 Esdras. Against his will, the author of that book is constrained to acknow- ledge the divine authority of the canon with its tuenty- four constituent parts. Being, however, a thoroughgoing partisan of the apocalyptic literature, he outdoes the Pharisees. To the seventy books-' w hich they exclude he attributes a still higher authority, placing them in an esoteric as distinguished from an exoteric canon.

By the end of the first century the scribes had settled the last of the questions controverted in the schools, and not long after the beginning of the second century (R. 'Akiba t)/^. 135), to refer to the decision at Janmia is decisive. Later, following in '.Akiba's footsteps, the scribes succeeded, not only in obliterating every trace of variations in the text, but also in driving from circulation the whole bocly of extra-canonical literature.'

showing how long its true character still continued to be known, is conveyed by the information that R. 'Akiba himself hurled an anathema against those who sang the Song of Songs with wanton voice in houses of public entertainment (Tosephta, Sank. chap. 12 ; cp WRS, O/yO'^l 186).

1 To this period and not to the fourth or the third century B.C. bel(Jngs the complaint, e.xpressed in the epilogue of Ecclesiastes (Eccles. 12 12), as to the making of many books.

2 If, as we have conjectured, the Sadducees were in general opposed to, or suspicious of, the recognition of any sacred writings besides the Law, there would be an open field for a view like that of the Pharisees, which took a middle course between Sadducean rigour and the fashionable tendency to the endless multiplication of religious literature.

>* In round numbers of course.

57. Christianity.[edit]

Christianity, however, in the vigour of its youth, emancipated from the authority of the scrities, continued to pursue the old ways. In the rejected literature it discovered prophecies of the appearing of Jesus ; and what the Pharisees (Icstioyi-d in the origin.al language it eagerly handed down in translations and revisions to succeeding genera- tions. The N'T writers show no scruple in quoting extra-canonical Ixjoks as sacred, and we find ascril)ed to Jesus some expressions quoted as Holy Writ (Lk. Il4g; Jn. 7,18) which are not contained in the OT. What is more, examples of this form of Jewish literature fused with Christian elements, or worked over from the Christian ]M)int of view, have found their w.iy into the canon of the NT itself a fact which only lately has lx?gun to receive the attention it deserves.^

58. Alexandrian canon.[edit]

This indei)eiulent drift of tendency within the Christian Clnirtli greatly increases the difliculty of estimating the Al so-called 'canon of the Alexandrians. As ^.|j j.o^^.,^ py^.n tl,y oldest extant MSS of the LXX contain, in addition to the canonical books, a greatly v.i.rying number of writings which are not recognised in the canon of the synagogue, and indeed in some cases were not even originally written in Hebrew. On the other hand, the oldest of these MSS are several centuries later than the Christian era, and are the work of Christian copyists. It Ix'comes a question, therefore, which is the earlier: the freer praxis of the Alexandrian Jews or that of primitive Christianity ; whether the greater compass of the LXM canon of the Alexandrians influenced the view of the Christian conmiunities or whether the influence flowed the other way.* The probability is that, in fact, the influence worked both ways. What principally con- cerns us here, however, is this. About the middle of the first century A. I). , when the Greek-six!aking Christian comnmnity began to break entirely with Judaism, the narrow Pharisaic doctrine of the canon had certainly not as yet ix.Mietrated into the domain of Hellenistic Judaism so deeply as to delete comjilotely, or to exclude from the M.SS of the LXX, all the books that Pharisaism refused to recognise. The vacillation in individual MSS nuist at that time have Ixjen even greater than it is in thf)se which have reached us ; although on this point definite knowledge is unattainable. It is certain, how- ever, that to some extent precisely those txxiks belong- ing to this category w hich Lay nearest to the heart of the Christian community in its most primitive days (especi- ally Knoch and 4 Esdras) have come down to us in no Creek M.S. The conclusion is that the additions to the LXX are for the most part older than Christianity.

1 Indeed it was supposed, until the recovery in 1896 of part of Kcclesixsticiis, that they had actually suctx-eded in extirpatinK it -so far, that is, as it was not able to hide itself under the veil of exegesis in the Hagijada, Midrash, and Talmud (We. /yC 2J2, second ed. 287). Kven Kcclesiasticus would lie no exception if we coidd admit the contention of I). .S. Margoliouth ( '/'Ac- Origin 0/ the ' Orii^inal Hchmv ' of /'.cclesinsthusy 1899). In his opinion the 'Original Hebrew' is a l).id retranslation (from the Syriac version and a Persian translation of the Cireek) made after looo a.d. by an Arabic-si>eaking Jew [or Christian'?] who was taught Hebrew by a Jew with a pronunciation similar to that of the Christians of Urmi. The reader will probably hesitate to accept this theory ; still it cannot l)e denied that M.irgoliouth has availed himself with great skill of many weak p)iiils of the Hebrew text, which in any case need a thorough investigation.

'- .\s to this cp Wildeboer, 48 /., who must be held in all essentials to have the better of the argument as against the vigorous polemic of Ryle, 153^

  • See, for example, Ai'OCAi.ypse.
  • In fact, to speak strictly, there never was such a canon.

The Alexandrine collection of Holy Books never underwent that revision in accord.nnce with the Pharisaic conception of 'defil- ing the hands ' which finally fixed the Hebrew canon.

  • On this point there seems to be some self-contradiction in

Uyle, if we compare pp. 146, 208 yC with i8oyC

The doctrine of the Pharisees, however, ultimately won the day also in its pro[x.'r home. Not only did it succeed in extending its influence over the Hellenists by means of the new (jreek translation of A(juila ; but also the Church itself ultimately surrendered- A strange and significant fact !

59. Partial return to Hebrew canon[edit]

From aboul 15o A.D. onwards there constantly occur patristic statements on the extent of the OT canon, which avowedly rest ujKjn Jewish authority. This certainly had its advantages ; for in this way many Ixjoks of merely tcmp<jrary value were excluded which, if rendered authoritative, could hardly have furthered the interests of Christianity. On the same ground trjo, the return of the Reformers to the canon of the synagogue is justifiable, esjjecially when, as in the case of Luther, the relative imjwrtance of the Apocrypha is duly recognised. On the other hand, it mu.st im confessed that even the unanimously accepted canon ' of the Church is not without Ixwjks of a similar character (notably ICsther and Canticles; also ICcclesiastes and Daniel), and that thus the distinction between canonical and uncanonical lx)oks (if they are judged by their intrinsic value) is a fluctuating one.'* liesides this, it is certain that in the excluded Ixxjks, of which we know so many already, and are continually coming through new discoveries to know more, there has come down to us a treasure of unspeakable value for a know- ledge of religious life as it was shortly before and after the time of Jesus, and so for an understanding of the origin of Christianity (see AfcK kyi'II.\, Ai'ocai.vi'TK I.

K. H.

B. NEW TESTAMENT[edit]

60. Jesus' Words and Deeds.[edit]

The problem of the NT canon is to discover by wli.it means and at what jx-'riod a new collection of sacred , books came to Ix; invested with all the dignity which lx.'longed to that of the Synagogue. Jesus had claimed to speak with an authority in no way inferior t< that of the OT, and had placed his own utterances side by side with some of its precepts as fulfilling or even correcting them. The renienilx;red words of Jesus thus lx;canie at once, if the expression may tx; allowed, the nucleus of a new Christian canon. At first they circulated orally from hearer to hearer. Then narra- tives were compiled recording the .Sacred Words, and the no less Sacred Deeds which had accompanied or illustrated them. Some narratives of this kind underlie our (jos[x-ls, and are referred to in the preface to the Thinl Gos|x.l.

61. Gospels.[edit]

In course of time these were superseded bv the fuller treatises which lx?ar the ^;^,^.5 yf apostles or the chosen com- panions of apostles ; and their superior merit, as well as the sanction thus given to them, soon left them without rivals as the authorised records of the Gosjx^l history. They were read side by side with books of the O'V in the public worship of the Church, and were appealed to as historical documents by those who wished to show- in detail the correspondence between the facts of the life of Jesus and the Jewish prophecies alxiut the Messiah. This stage has lx;en definitely reached by the time of Justin Martyr ; but as yet there is no clear proof that a special sanctity or inspiration was predicated of the books themselves. The final siej), however, could not long be delayed. The sacredness of the Words and Deeds of Jesus which they contained, the afjostolic authority by which they were recommended, and, above all, their familiar use in the services of the Church, gradually raised them to the level of the ancient Scriptures ; and the process w;\s no doubt accelerated by the action of heretical and schismatical bodies, claiming one after another to base their tenets upon certain of these documents or upon others peculiar to themselves.

1 There is, however, a singular passage in the sixth of the Anglican Articles of Religion limiting ' Holy Scripture ' to ' those canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments, of whose authority wasneveranydoubt in the Church, 'which Bishop West- cott(('> the Canon oj'the .\' /I*), 494) cannot undertake to explain.

- See Cheyne, Founders, 349, and cp preceding note.

62. Epistles.[edit]

Meanwhile a similar process had been going on in regard to other writings of the apostolic age. These were for the most part letters, written in many instances to particular churches, and designed to meet sjjecial needs. The writers betray no consciousness that their words would come to be regarded as a permanent standard of doctrine or of action in the Christian Church : they write for an immediate purpose, and just as they would wish to speak, were they able to be present with those whom they address. In their absence, and still more after their death, their letters were cherished and read again and again by the churches which had first received them, and by others who naturally welcomed such precious relics of the apostolic age. I"or the apostles were the authori-sed instructors of the Christian Church. In the age which succeeded them, ' the Lord and the apostles' became the natural standard of appeal to which reference was to l)e made in all matters of faith and practice. For some time ' the tradition of the apostles,' as handed down in the churches of their foundation, was regarded as the test of orthodo.\y. Oral tradition, however, is necessarily variable and uncertain. It was natural that, when actual disciples of the apostles were no longer living, ajipeal should more and more be made to their written words, and that these should be set side by side with the Gospels as the primary documents of the Christian faith. Here again the same elements as before come into play, though probably at a slightly later period viz., the liturgical use of the epistles, and the necessity of maintaining them intact against the muti- lations or rejections of heretical sects.

63. Other books.[edit]

In the collection which was thus gradually being formed by the pressure of various circumstances and with no distinct consciousness of the creation of a canon, a place was found beside the Gospels and the epistles for two otht books. The Apocalypse of John opened with the salutation of an epistle ; and, even apart from this, its ajjocalyptic character claimed for it a special and abiding sacredness ; moreover it contained an express blessing for those who should read and listen to it, and a warning against any who should presume to alter or add to it. The Acts of the Apostles would find an easy entrance, partly as an authorised account of the deeds of apostles written by one who had contem- poraneous knowledge of them, and still more as being in form the second part of the Third Gospel and properly insejjarable from the earlier book.

64. A new canon[edit]

Thus, side by side with the old Jewish canon, and without in any way displacing it, there had sprung up a , new Christian canon. Although its exact limits were not yet precisely defined, and local variations of opinion were to be observed with regard to the acceptance of par- ticular books, we find the idea of such a new canon in full play in the writings of great representative men of the period from i8o to 200 A. n. of Irenaeus speaking for Asia Minor and Gaul, of Tertullian in N. Africa, and of Clement in Alexandria. The Church is by this time fully conscious that she is in possession of written documents of the apostolic age ; documents to which reference must be universally made, as to a final court of appeal, in questions of right faith and right action. The authority of Jesus and his apostles is, in the main, embodied for her in writings which she reads together with the OT in her public services, quotes as Scripture, and regards as the inspired revelation of divine truth. Of the stages by which this result has lieen reached the writers referred to have nothing to tell us. It was, as we have seen, the issue ot an un- conscious growth, natural and for the most part un- challenged, and so leaving no recorded history behind it. If the Church was awakened to a consciousness of her great possession, and to the importance of insisting upon its integrity, by the attempts made by heretics to defraud her of portions of it, there is no evidence of deliberate efforts on her part to build up the conception of a new canon in opposition to them ; much less of any formal declarations, such as those of later times, defining what books should or should not be included in it. In the stress of controversy she fell back on the treasures which she possessed, and realised that in the books which she was accustomed to read for the in- struction of her children she had, on the one hand, the full and harmonious expression of all those positive truths whose isolation or exaggeration formed the groundwork of the several heretical systems, and, on the other hand, the decisive contradiction of the negations in which their capricious selections had involved those who rejected any part of the common heritage.

65. Evidence of orthodox writers[edit]

2. That the sketch given above of the gradual growth of a new canon with its twofold contents, in the period anterior to Iren;x;us, Tertullian, and Clement, is justified not only by in- trinsic probability but also by the riMnen'tftt references of early Christian writers ' ' to books of the NT, may be seen by consulting the collections of such references accessible in modern treatises upon the canon. Here a brief outline of the evidence must suffice.

In the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians {circa 95) we have two jirecepts introduced by a com- mand to ' remember the words of our Lord Jesus' (cp Acts 20 35) : in neither case do they exactly agree with the language of our Gospels ; they may be the result of a fusion due to citation from memory, or they may possibly be derived from oral tradition. The epistle is saturated with the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles (Rom., i Cor., Eph. ; less certainly Tim. and others) and of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but these are not directly cited, and the expressions 'Scripture' and ' it is written ' are applied to the OT alone.

In the genuine Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (shorter Greek recension, circa no A. D. , Lightfoot) the only direct citation of words of Jesus ( ' Lay hold and handle me and see that I am not a spirit [Sai/xoviov] without body,' Ad Sinvrn. 3) is possibly derived from an apocryphal book or from an oral tradition. The language of these Epistles shows traces of acquaintance with Mt. and Jn. and with several of the Pauline Epistles. The Epistle of Polycarp (circa no .^.D. , Lightfoot) is largely composed of quotations from NT books | especially Mt. , Lk. , I and 2 Jn. , i Pe. , and the Pauline Epistles). There is but one (somewhat uncertain) instance of the citation of NT words as Scripture.

The Epistle of Barnabas (circa 98 A.D. , Lightfoot: though most scholars place it later) prefixes to the saying ' Many called but few chosen,' the formula ' it is written.' If this be cited from Mt. 22 14 and a later reference makes it not improbable then we have here the earliest use of this formula in reference to a book of the NT.

The Teaching of the Apostles (date uncertain : perhaps 1 10-130) introduces a form of the Lord's Prayer, which has variants both from Mt. and Lk. , by the words, ' as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, so pr.ay ye' (chap. 8; cp chaps. W, L*)). It clearly presup- poses a written Gospel, and shows acquaintance with Mt. and Lk. It has embodied an ancient (perhaps Jewish) manual, ' The Two Ways ' (used also in Ep. Barn, and elsewhere), and also certain early eucharistic prayers which incorporate the language of Jn.

The Apology of Aristides, the Athenian philosopher (circa 125-130 A. D. ), addressed to the emperor Hadrian (ace. to Eus. and the title of Arm. vers. ; the title of the .Syr. vers, would place it a few years later, under Antoninus Pius), twice refers expressly to writings of the Christians ; in the first instance, after enumerating the main events of the life of Jesus including his birth from a Hebrew virjjin ' and his ascension it distinctly ap|x.'als to the written Gosix;! for corroboration. It also cintxMlics lanKuage from the E|jistle to the Koinans.

The Sht-phfiJ of Jlertnas (date uncertain : 1 10-140) betrays a close acquaintance with many NT books, though it makes no direct citations either from OT or fronv NT. The language of our four Cjospels (even of the Apixjndi-v to Mk. ). of the Pauline Kpistles including the Pastoral Epp. , of 1 I'e. , Acts, .\poc. , and alxjve all of J:is. . is adopted by the writer ; and even 2 Pe. seems to have lieen used.

66 Papias.[edit]

Hefore we come to the fuller testimonies of Justin Martyr and subseciuent writers it is necessary to examine the evidence to Ix; derived from Papias. His date and the interpretation to Ix: [)laced on his fragnientary remains have been the subject of much criticism (see esp. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, 142-216). He was the hearer of at least two {personal disciples of Jesus, and his great work may V)e i)laced circa 130-140. It was entitled Xoyluv KvpiaKdv i^yjyi^afit, ' Expositions of the Oracles of (or 'concerning') the Lord.' As \6yia is a term used in the NT of the OT writings, the title of the book naturally suggests some kind of com- mentary on the writings relating to Jesus i.e., on written Gospels which held a recognised position of sacredness in the Christian Church. It is probable that similar conmientaries on one or more of the Gosix;ls had already tjcen composed by Gnostic writers : thus Basilides is said to have written twenty-four books on ' the Gospel ' [circa 1 1 7- 1 38 ). Such books are disparaged by Papias as wordy and misleading ; he prefers to fall l)ack on the testimonies of the living disciples of those who had seen the Lord. He gives accounts, not free from diflicultics, of the composition of Gosfx-ls by Matthew and Mark. On the whole, the facts seem to be most readily accounted for if we suppose that Papias in his five books expounded and illustrated by traditional stories the four Gospels as we at present know them. Euscbius further expressly informs us that Papias used i Jn. and i Pe. There can be little doubt that his chiliastic views were based on the Apocalypse.

67. Justin[edit]

Justin Martyr (circa 152), when mentioning the words of the institution of the Eucharist, says : ' So the apostIes handed down in the Memoirs made by them, which are called Gospels ' (Afi. 166). In descrit)ing the Sunday worship, too, he refers to 'The Memoirs of the Ajxistlcs' {A/>. 1 67 ; see L<)Kn'.s D.AV), and these Memoirs (dirott.VT)txovtuft.aTa) are placed on a level with the ' Writings of the Prophets ' as an alternative means of edification in the gatherings of the Christian Church. Justin's >ise of them, here and in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, is conditioned by the necessities of his argument. In tliemsclves they would have no weight w ith heathen or Jewish o|)ponents. The OT prophecies, however, could l)e freely appealed to in either case, as the argument rested on their fulfil- ment rather than on their sacredness. Justin accordingly uses 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' as historical documents in proof of the fulfilment of Messianic predictions in the recorded events of the life of Jesus. Twelve times he refers to them directly in the Dialogue all the instances being in connection with his exposi- tion of Ps. '22. In every case, both here and in the Apologv, the reference is fully accounted for by the supposition that these ' Memoirs ' were our four (iospels, the phraseology of each of which can be traced in his writings. Where he most carefully describes them, after referring to an event recordetl only by Lk. , he says that ' they were compiled by Christ's apostles and those who companied with them." This exactly agrees with the traditional authorship of our Gospels, as written two by apostles (Mt., Jn. ), and two by followers of apostles (Mk., Lk.). Justin likewise refers for corroboration of his statements to official Acta /'ilati : he may perhaps have lieen accjuainted with a more primitive form of the a[xjcryi>hal materials still surviving under that debignation. There is, however, no satisfactory evidence that he used any ajxxryphal Gospel (unless perhaps a ' Protevangel ' or Gospel of the Infancy). He refers directly to the Apocalypse as written by the apostle John (Tryf>h. 81), and shows acquaintance with most of the Pauline lipistles.

68. Tatian[edit]

From Justin we pass to his pupil Tatian [circa 150- 160 A.u. ), who helps to confirm our conclusions as to Justin himself by his use of our four ' Gospels and no other in his Dialessaron. This remarkable lx)ok, which for a long period must have Ixien the only (j(>s(x;l of many .Syrian churches, is known to us mainly through a Comnientary upon it written by Ephraim, and preserved to us in an Armenian translation ; and also through an Arabic version of the Dialessaron itself made, however, after the later text of the Peshitta Syriac had been substituted for Tatian's own text, which had many interesting variants of an early type. The two sources of evidence suiJplement each other, and make it certain that Tatian's Gos(x.'ls were none other than our own. There is some reason for thinking that Tatian also introduced into Syria a col- lection of the Pauline Epistles.

69. Un-orthodox: Basilides, etc.[edit]

3. Although Tatian adopted heretical opinions after the death of his master, his great work on the Gosjx:ls appears to be quite indejjendent of these, and was accepted without question by the Syrian Church .^,.^- < j^^^^.^ ^ ..iU be well, however, to notice at this pomt the evidence to Ix: derived from other heretical leaders in regard to the estimation in which various books of the NT were held by those who were dissatisfied with the teaching of the main body of the Church. It will suffice to take three writers of whom we have a considerable amount of information preserved to us. Basilides of Alexandria flourished in the reign of Hadrian. His Expositions on the Gos[x:l, in twenty-four books, have already been mentioned. Accepting, with Hort, the account pre- served in the Refutation of Heresies (generally ascrilx-d to Hippolytus) as representing portions of this work, we meet with the striking fact that quotations from the NT, introduced with the words ' The .Scripture saith,' and ' as it is written,' are found in a heretical writer at a period at which they cannot with certainty be said to be so introduced by any writer within the Church. Several passages from the Pauline Epistles are so cited by Basilides. He also used Mt. , Lk. , Jn. , and appar- ently I Pe.

Marcion (circa 140) undertook to restore the sim- plicity of Christianity on the basis of Paul, whom he re- garded as the only true apostle. He rejected the OT and retained of the NT only Lk. in a nmtilated form, and ten I'pislles of Paul ; the Pastoral Epistles and the I-'pistle to the Hebrews not being included in his canon. There is no indication that he applied any other standard than that of correspondence with his own dogmatic position, in making what must be considered the earliest attempt at the conscious definition of a NT canon.

Heracleon (circa 170, or earlier), a disciple of Valentinus. wrote a Commentary on Jn. , of which con- siderable fragments are preserved by Origen. His system of interpretation shows that he held the exact words of the Evangelist in the highest veneration, as instinct with spiritual meaning. He also commented on Lk. , and shows acquaintance with Mt. , Heb. , and the Pauline Epistles including 2 Tim.

Thus the first certain citations of NT writings with the formula familiarly used of the OT, the first attempt at defining a NT canon, and the first commentary on a NT book, come to us not from within but from without the Church. These are striking evidences of the authority generally accorded to the NT writings ; in the words of Irenreus (iii. 2?) : 'So strong is the position of our Gospels, that the heretics themselves bear witness to them, and each must start from these to prove his own doctrine.'

70. Early versions.[edit]

4. The early history of the Old Latin and the Old Syriac versions is wrapt in obscurity ; but there is reason for believing that the translation of parts at least of both these versions must ^ pieced not much later than the middle of the second century (see Tkxt, 20, 32). The Old Latin version seems to have been made in N. Africa, and to have included, probably before the time of TertuUian, all the books of the later canon, excepting Jas. , 2 Pe. , and possibly Heb. When the Scillitan Martyrs (N. Africa, 180 A. n. ) were examined as to what was contained in their book-chest, their brief recorded reply was ' Rooks and Epistles of Paul, a just man.' Such was their description of the writings which, doubtless, were used by them in their services. It is conditioned by the circumstance of its utterance before heathen judges ; it would be wrong to conclude from it that the Pauline Epistles were placed by them on a different level from the other sacred writings. The Old Syriac of the Gospels has till lately been known only from Cureton's imperfect MS ; but the palimpsest recently found at Mt. Sinai enables us to reconstruct this version for the most part with approximate certainty. A selection of comments by Ephraim on the Acts of the Apostles, and his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, preserved in Armenian translations, point to an Old Syriac version of these books also. The older MSS of the rexised Syriac version (the Peshitta) do not contain 2 and 3 Jn., 2 Pe. , Jude, and Apoc.

71. General traces of NT.[edit]

We have been concerned hitherto with tracing the growth of the conception of a XT canon, without considering, except incidentally, the range of writings included in it. The influence of the main body of the NT literature upon the writers of the period with which we have been dealing cannot be at all fully appreciated from our scanty analysis. Their writings must them- selves be studied line by line, if we are to understand the debt xshich they owed, as regards both ideas and phraseology, to the documents of the apostolic age. In that age new conceptions had been given to the world, and a new terminology had been formed for their expression. The next age reproduced these ; but it was not itself creative. This is seen, for instance, in the technical terms of even the boldest of the Gnostic speculations. Whatever may have been men's conscious attitude towards the XT writings, it is clear that they are dominated by them from the very first. Gradually they come to recognise them more and more as their masters ; and then, both within the Church and outside it, we find them definitely declaring the limits of the canon to which they owe this allegiance.

72. Muratorian canon.[edit]

Marcion's list of sacred books has already been noticed. The next list of which we have any knowledge is unfortunately a fragment, and tells us neither its date nor its author's name or locality. It was published in 1740 by Lodovico .-\ntonio Muratori, the librarian at Milan. Hence it is known as the Muratorian canon. It is in barbarous Latin, in a seventh or eighth century MS ; but its original must have been Greek, and it is generally agreed that it was written in the West (perhaps at Rome) towards the close of the second century. Light- foot conjectured that it was a portion of the ' Verses on all the Scriptures' assigned to Hippolytus. The fragment commences with the end of a description of Mark ; it goes on to speak of Luke and John, and refers to the different beginnings of the four books of the Gospel. .After .-\cts come the Epistles of Paul ; the seven churches to which he wrote being paralleled with the seven of the Apocalvpse, and enumerated in the following order Cor. , Eph. , Phil. , Col. , Gal. , Thess. , Rom. Then come four private letters Philemon and the Pastoral epistles. Two other epistles are de- clared forgeries viz. , those to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Then we have Jude, two epistles of John (i Jn. has been quoted from at an earlier point, so that these may perhaps be 2 and 3 Jn. ), and the Wisdom of Solomon, 'written in his honour.' Then the ' apocalypses of John and Peter alone we receive, which (sirtg. ) some among us will not have read in the church. ' The Shepherd of Hermas ' ought to be read,' but not reckoned either with the prophets or with the apostles. After a few more lines as to rejected books, the text being very corrupt, the fragment suddenly closes. The omissions are deserving of notice nothing is said of i and 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews but the omitted epistles were undoubtedly (if we e.xccjit 2 Peter) known at this time in the Roman church. It is difficult, therefore, to draw conclusions from their omission in a fragment of whose history so little can Ijc ascertained and whose text is so obviously corrupt. The Muratorian canon is fully discussed by Zahn, Hist, of the Canon ('90) 21-43: quite recently Dom Amelli of

I Monte Cassino has published fragments of it from other MSS [Misc. Cassin., 1897).

73. Books temporarily received[edit]

5. The inclusion (though with an expression of variance of opinion) of the Apocalypse of Peter in the 'Muratorian Fragment' leads temporarily ^^ ^^ ^^^. something of books which for a time claimed a place in the canon, but were ultimately excluded.

The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Homily, miscalled his 'Second Epistle,' are contained,

I after the Apocalypse, in Cod. A (the great Greek BiVjle of the 5th cent, in the Rrit. Mus. ). The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas hold a similar place in the Sinaitic Bible (X, 4th cent. ). The two latter books are occasionally cited as Scripture in patristic writings, and this is the case also with the Teaching of the Apostles.

Of apocryphal (iospels two deserve special notice. The Gospel accorditig to the Hebrcivs is known only by a few fragments, which show that it bore a close relation to our First Gospel. Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote from it, although they insist on the sole authority of our four Gospels. The Gospel accord- ing to Peter, a considerable fragment of which was published in 1892 from a MS found in Egypt, is known to have been used in the church of Rhossus near Antioch. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203), at first permitted its use, but subsequently disallowed it on the ground of Docetic errors. The extant portion embodies the language of all our four Gospels, though it often perverts their statements. There is no trace of the use of any other Gospel in its composition, though certain phrases may possibly be borrowed from some earlier apocryphal book. Its composition may with probability be assigned to circa 165. Its testimony to the canon is thus somewhat parallel in date and extent to that of Tatian's Diatessaron.

The Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered at the same time, was an early book which powerfully influenced subsequent literature of a similar kind e.g., the Apocalypse of Paul. It seems to be responsible for much of the mediaeval conception of heaven and hell. It presents curious coincidences with 2 Peter. It is c|uoted as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria ; and as late as the fifth century it was read on Good Friday in certain churches of Palestine.

74. Results[edit]

6. Our inquiry has revealed to us that towards the close of the second century, by the time of Irenneus, TertuUian, and Clement writers whose testimonies are so abundant that we need not dwell upon them here the Church had attained to a conscious recognition of a canon of the New Testa- ment. Three classes of books have come into view :

1 (i) the main bulk of the NT books, as to which no doubt at all is expressed by writers within the Church ;

(2) books whose |)<)sition in the canon was challenged in certain (|uartcrs, although they ultimately were included ;

(3) Ijooks which were read in certain churches, but were ultimately classed as non-canonical.

With regartl to books of the second of these classes the later history of their reception will be found under the special articles devoted to them, and in the works to which reference is made lx;low. With regard to the third it may suffice to say that the verdict of the Church has been fully justified by the fact that no serious effort has ever lx.'en made to reinstate them. J. A. K.

75. Bibliography : OT[edit]

Literature of the Subject. i. OT Canon. The following works dealing with the OT canon may tie mentioned. The authors are arranged in alphalx-'tical order.

\V. J. Heecher, 'The alleged Triple Canon of the OT," J HI. 1896; C. .\. \W\%'g,i., General Introduction to the Study 0/ Holy Scripture, 1899 ; liuhl, Ka'ion u. le.xt d. .A Ts, 1891 ; I)e Wctte-Schratler, Kinl. in d. .11', 8th ed. 1869; Duhni, /)as lUich Jesaiii, 1892, Die Kntstehung des .{ T, 1897 ; Kiirst, Der Knnon des .-//', 1868; (Iraetz, Koheleth, 1871 ; Holtzmann, Kinl. in d. X t', 3rd ed. 189-' ; Koenig, Hssni sur la/oriiiation du Canon de I'Ancicn Testament, 1S94; Marx, Traditio Rahhin- orum veterrima, etc. 1884; WRS, OTJO-^, 1892 ; Kyle, The Canon 0/ the OT, 1892; Schiirer, CJl' ii. i8?6; Strack, art. ' Kanon des .\T ' in /'A'A(2| 7 ; Weber, System der altsyn. fial. Theotogie, 1880; We. ' Die Sammlung der Schriften des .M ' in IMeek, /.7/.(- ('78) and /.'m/.il ('93); Wildehoer, Die Kntste- hung des .{'/'-lichen Kanons, 1891 (KT 95); C.H.H. Wright, The Hook 0/ Koheleth, 1883 ; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen I'ortriigc der Judeii, irtA ed. 1832. Moreover, Wildeboer in his valuable article, ' De voor-Thalmudische Joodsche Kanon' {Thcologische Studii'n, 1897) cites the following books and articles, written, with the exception of the first, by Roman Catholics: T. Mullen, The Canon 0/ the OT, 1893; A. Loisy, Histoire du Canon de r.AT, 1890; Magnier, ktude sur la Canonicitf des Saintes Kcritures, I. 1892 ; B. Portner, Die Autoritiit der dcuti rokanonischen Biicherdes .A Ts, 1893 ; J. P. van Kasteren, De Joodsche Canon (Stud. op. godsd. nvtensch. en leiterk.-gehied, xxviii.), 1895. K. B.

76. Bibliography : NT[edit]

ii. NT Canon. A brief outline of a subject of the highest importance, which bristles with jjoints of contro- ^^"^y' "^^^ necessarily passed over in ^'-'"'^'^ ^ \Mg^ portion of the evidence, " ^ and needs to be supplemented by a list of books in which the various topics are treated in de- tail and, in some cases, from a different point of view. The following will prove most useful to the modern student :

Westcott On the Canon 0/ the NT (7th ed. 1896), a mine of information on the early Christian writini;s ; Liglitfoot's Essays on Suf>ernatiiral Religion (rcpuhlislicd 1889), specially importantfor Papiasand other early writers : Salmon's Historical Introduction to the .i'V7"(8th ed. 1897), a vigorous examination of adverse criticism ; Sanday's Hampton Lectures on lnsf>iration, a careful and sympathetic account of the present position of controversy; 'VVeiss's Introd. to the NT (1886; ET, 1887), aclear exposition of the early history; Zahn's Gesch. d. NT A'rtJ^'wi (1888-92), together with his Forschungcn (in five parts 1881-83), by far the most exhaustive treatise that has appeared ; Harnack's examination of vol. i. pt. i of this work in Das N'T um das Jcthr 200 ('89), a severe criticism his own position is stated Dositively in his Dogmengesch. (1885; 2nd ed. 1888, pp. 304-328) : Jiilicher's h'.inl. in das A"/' ('94), an able statement of a position intermediate between Weiss and Harn.-ick. Har- pack's preface to his Chronologie der altchr. Litteratur ('97) is a noteworthy utterance, indicating the abandonment of the Tiibingcn positions in regard to the dating of N I" documents.

[Holtzniann may also be mentioned as an eminently fair- minded guide, and abundant in literary references (AY/. in das A'7'Pi, 1894). Among older books, see Credner, /.ur Gesch. des Kanons ("47), and his Gesch. des A' 7" Nations; edited by Volkmar ('60), important for the historv of the study of the canon ; also Hilgenfeld's Einl. in das N'T, 1875.] j. a. R. 60-74, 76, J. A. K.

SS 1-59. 75. K- B.