of Esther. Ezra wrote his book, and the genealogy in the books of Chronicles, so far as himself."" Bertholdt and Hävernik's explanation of the word , (written,) as meaning inserted in the canon, finds no support in the foregoing extracts, as Hävernik maindisproved tains, and is answered by the connection in which the word stands,' and by the following declaration of Raschi, and the connection in which it stands. "The men of the great synagogue wrote the book of Ezekiel, for he prophesied in the exile. But I do not know why Ezekiel himself did not write, unless for the reason that it is not permitted that prophecy should be written out of the Holy Land. Therefore, after they returned thither, they wrote the book of Ezekiel, and in like manner the book of Daniel, who had lived as an exile, and also the book of Esther, and the twelve Prophets. These prophets did not write down their predictions, for they were short. Then came Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, and, when they saw the Holy Spirit was taken away,- for they were the last prophets, - they wrote down their predictions, and added these short predictions to them, and made a larger volume, lest it should perish on account of its smallness. Rabbi Gedaliah (in Shalshaleth Hakkabala, fol. 21) ascribes a recension of the text to the great synagogue, and Elias the Levite (1. c. p. 45) speaks distinctly of the compilation of the Old Testament by the same body. a [All of the above extracts from the Talmud, except the two last, are omitted in the last edition of the author; but, as they have some value in the estimation of many scholars, I have thought proper to retain them. See more of similar nature in Buxtorf's Tiberias, p. 94, sqq.] What would this mean, And Joshua "inserted in the canon " verses in the law? (anb) eight * See Aurivill, De Synagoga vulgo dicta magna, in his Dissertations, edited by J. H. Michaelis, p. 145. The legend of the wonderful restoration of the books of the Old Testament by Ezra deserves scarce any regard. [This tradition, which has gained ground even in modern times, asserts that, by various accidents, the Incorrect sacred books of the Hebrews had become corrupt. the legend account of Some passages had been added, others had been lost. referred to But Ezra was inspired for the purpose of correcting the y De Wette.) He expunged all that was spurious, and restored what was genuine."] See Noyes 's Transt. of Proverbs, &c. p. 137. text. The account in 2 Macc. ii. 13, which attributes the collection of the writings of the Old Testament to Nehemiah, is more credible in itself; but, from the character of the source whence it proceeds, it is of little value." However, it is certain that the whole of the Old Testa- like the New, ment collection came gradually into existence, and as it was formed were of itself, and, by force of custom or public use, ac-gradually, quired a sort of sanction. The hypothesis that archives Afterwards, were kept in the temple at Jerusalem, receives powerful support from the customs of the ancients." [Bertholdt, however, enlarges upon this hypothesis, Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 329. Theodoret, Præf. Com. in Heb. 4 Ezra xiv. Irenæus adv. Hæres. iii. 25. Tertullian, De Cult. Fem. i. p. 3, (in § 25.) Cant. Chrysostom, Homil. viii. in Ep. ad Script. ii. 33. Comp. Buxtorf, 1. c. p. 103. ⚫ [See the authorities in Buxtorf, 1. c. c. xi.] • Καὶ ὡς καταβαλλόμενος βιβλιοθήκην, ἐπισυνήγαγε τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ προφητῶν, καὶ τὰ τοῦ Δαυὶδ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βασιλέων περὶ áva quátov. Movers, De utriusque recens. Vatic. Jerem. Indole et Origine, p. 49, by tа nɛgì tôv faσiktov, understands the Chronicles (?), and by Ta Tov Aavid, the first book of Psalms, [Ps. i.-xlv.,] and by the лorolás, &c., the book of Ezra. Euseb. Præp. Evang. i. 9. Epiphan. De Pond. et Mens. c. 4, Opp. ii. p. 162. Joan. Damasc. De orthod. Fide, iv. 18. Augustin. 1. c. ii. 33. Huet. 1. c. p. 542. 1. H. Majus, Diss. sel. 2. Eichhorn, § 3, p. 21. Ilgen, Urkunden, Vorrede, p. viii. Corrodi, (Beleucht. d. Gesch. d. Bibelkanons, vol. i. p. 26,) and Bauer, (Einleit. p. 32,) have justly appreciated this theory. a public decree, it mu have/ Examine to a great extent, and utters some extravagant opinions. He says, "According to the common opinion, Moses, and the authors of the other canonical books of the Old Testament, deposited their autographs in the ark of the covenant; or, at least, the priests, who were the guardians of the national literature, as in other nations of the old world, took charge of them, so that one copy of every new literary or national work was taken for the holy place in the temple. The analogy of ancient times speaks decidedly in favor of the existence of holy writings in the temple at Jerusalem, and does not permit us to deny, that after the time of Ezra, or the second temple, the sacred national writings, collected by him, were preserved in the side of the ark of the covenant. But, on the other hand, there are no facts which warrant the assertion, or even the belief." "Now, Epiphanius (1. c. iv.) says the apocryphal books of the Old Testament were never deposited in the ark; and, on the other hand, we know, from Josephus, that Titus found the canonical books there. Irenæus thinks the sacred books perished, with the temple and city, at the burning of the first temple. He supposes, also, there were two sacred national archives in the first temple, of which Augustine speaks expressly. This supposition lies at the foundation of a story which circulated among the Jews a considerable time before the birth of Christ, and which contradicts the statement of Irenæus and Augustine, namely, that Jeremiah had secured the temple copy of the holy writings before the temple was burned. (2 Macc. ii. 4-8.) But there is sufficient ground for believing that this opinion that there was a collection of all the holy writings of the nation in the first temple arose from the state of things while the second temple was stand ing." He thus states the argument against the existence of a temple library before the captivity: "The example of other nations of antiquity could have little influence on the Hebrews before the exile, for they were completely isolated. Before the exile, when they were thrown among the Babylonians and Chaldeans, and Assyrians and Medes, they could not become acquainted with the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of other nations; and it may therefore be assumed, with greater probability, that the arrangement of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the succeeding members of the company of scribes,' to make faithful and accurate copies of all the sacred national writings, and to deposit them in the temple, had its origin in the acquaintance with the manners and customs of other nations, which they first made during the exile." This is more probable than the opinion that he only restored the previous sacred archives of the temple. For, if all the sacred writings had been deposited in the temple anterior to the destruction of the state, accounts of that important literary and national depot must occur here and there in the old writings still extant. But there is no allusion to its existence." This latter statement is wholly wrong; for the following passages speak distinctly of the preservation of legal writings before the exile, viz., 1 Sam. x. 25, where Samuel deposits the constitution of the kingdom in a holy place; Deut. xxxi. 26, where a command is given that the Law be kept in the ark. But compare 1 Kings viii. 9, and 2 Kings xxiii. 8, from which it appears the law was not kept in the ark. The following passages speak of the preservation of the Old [Certainly the Jews had intercourse with other nations, at least in the time of Solomon; but why did they, more than the Phoenicians, Egyptians, or Babylonians, need the example of other nations to teach them so obvious a contrivance?] Λ Testament in the temple after the exile, viz., Josephus, Antiq. iii. 1, §7; v. 1, § 17; Wars, vii. 5, 5; and Life, § 75. Nothing was found in the holy of holies. (Wars, ch. v. 5, 5.) The existence, therefore, of such a collection, both before and after the exile, and its preservation in the temple, seem to be attested by all the evidence we could reasonably expect under the circumstances of the case. But no one can determine, from any of these passages referred to, how much, or how little, this temple library contained.] § 15. TIME OF FINISHING THE OLD TESTAMENT. The most ancient mention of the Old Testament collection, as a whole, is found in the Prologue of Jesus the Son of Sirach, about 130 B. C. But from this passage we cannot prove that the third division of the Old Testament had been finally closed in its present form. The evidence of the New Testament (Luke xxiv. 44, and Matt. xxiii. 35) is also somewhat indefinite. (§ 10.) Philo, who flourished about 41 B. C., appears to cite the Old Testament as a whole; but he does not mention all parts of it, and therefore he cannot be a competent witness." But, on the other hand, the existence of the Old Tesborn A.D. 37) tament, in its present form, is authenticated by Josephus, who not only mentions and makes use of almost all the books it contains, but enumerates in all twenty-two books, and places the conclusion of the sacred literature of the Hebrews in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus. He * See Hornemann, Observatt. ad illustrat. Doct. de Canone V. T., ex Philone; 1775. |