The Canon of the Bible.
by Samuel Davidson.
PREFACE.
The substance of the present work was written toward the close of the year 1875 for the new edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. Having been abridged and mutilated, contrary to the author"s wishes, before its publication there, he resolved to print it entire. With that view it has undergone repeated revision with enlargement in different parts, and been made as complete as the limits of an essay appeared to allow. As nothing of importance has been knowingly omitted, the writer hopes it will be found a comprehensive summary of all that concerns the formation and history of the Bible canon. The place occupied by it was vacant. No English book reflecting the processes of results of recent criticism, gives an account of the canon in both Testaments. Articles and essays upon the subject there are; but their standpoint is usually apologetic not scientific, traditional rather than impartial, unreasonably conservative without being critical. The topic is weighty, involving the consideration of great questions, such as the inspiration, authenticity, authority, and age of the Scriptures. The author has tried to handle it fairly, founding his statements on such evidence as seemed convincing, and condensing them into a moderate compa.s.s. If the reader wishes to know the evidence, he may find it in the writer"s _Introductions to the Old and New Testaments_, where the separate books of Scripture are discussed; and in the late treatises of other critics. While his expositions are capable of expansion, it is believed that they will not be easily shaken. He commends the work to the attention of all who have an interest in the progress of theology, and are seeking a foundation for their faith less precarious than books however venerable.
It has not been the writer"s purpose to chronicle phases of opinion, or to refute what he believes to be error in the newest hypotheses about the age, authority, and composition of the books. His aim has been rather to set forth the most correct view of the questions involved in a history of the canon, whether it be more or less recent. Some may think that the latest or most current account of such questions is the best; but that is not his opinion. Hence, the fashionable belief that much of the Pentateuch, the Book of Leviticus wholly, with large parts of Exodus and Numbers, in a word, that all the laws relating to divine worship, with most of the chronological tables or statistics, belong to Ezra, who is metamorphosed in fact into the first Elohist, is unnoticed. Hence, also, the earliest gospel is not declared to be Mark"s. Neither has the author ventured to place the fourth gospel at the end of the first century, as Ewald and Weitzsacker do, after the manner of the old critics; or with Keim so early as 110-115 A.D.
Many evince a restless anxiety to find something novel; and to depart from well-established conclusions for the sake of originality. This shows a morbid state of mind. Amid the feverish outlook for discoveries and the slight regard for what is safe, conservatism is a commendable thing. Some again desire to return, as far as they can, to orthodoxy, finding between that extreme and rationalism a middle way which offers a resting-place to faith. The numerous changes which criticism presents are not a symptom of soundness. The writer is far indeed from thinking that every question connected with the books of Scripture is finally settled; but the majority undoubtedly are, though several already fixed by great scholars continue to be opened up afresh. He does not profess to adopt the phase of criticism which is fashionable at the moment; it is enough to state what approves itself to his judgment, and to hold it fast amid the contrarieties of conjecture or the cravings of curiosity. Present excrescences or aberrations of belief will have their day and disappear.
Large portions of the Pentateuch will cease to be consigned to a post-exile time, and the gospels of Matthew and Luke will again be counted the chief sources of Mark"s. It will also be acknowledged that the first as it now exists, is of much later origin than the fall of Jerusalem. Nor will there be so great anxiety to show that Justin Martyr was acquainted with the fourth gospel, and owed his Logos-doctrine chiefly to it. The difference of ten or twenty years in the date of a gospel will not be considered of essential importance in estimating its character.
The present edition has been revised throughout and several parts re-written. The author hopes that it will be found still more worthy of the favor with which the first was received.
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY.
As introductory to the following dissertation, I shall explain and define certain terms that frequently occur in it, especially _canon_, _apocryphal_, _ecclesiastical_, and the like. A right apprehension of these will make the observations advanced respecting the canon and its formation plainer. The words have not been taken in the same sense by all, a fact that obscures their sense. They have been employed more or less vaguely by different writers. Varying ideas have been attached to them.
The Greek original of _canon_(1) means primarily a straight rod or pole; and metaphorically, what serves to keep a thing upright or straight, a _rule_. In the New Testament it occurs in Gal. vi. 16 and 2 Cor. x. 13, 15, 16, signifying in the former, a measure; in the latter, what is measured, a _district_. But we have now to do with its ecclesiastical use.
There are three opinions as to the origin of its application to the writings used by the church. According to Toland, Whiston, Semler, Baur, and others, the word had originally the sense of _list_ or _catalogue_ of books publicly read in Christian a.s.semblies. Others, as Steiner, suppose that since the Alexandrian grammarians applied it to collections of Old Greek authors as _models_ of excellence or _cla.s.sics_, it meant _cla.s.sical_ (canonical) _writings_. According to a third opinion, the term included from the first the idea of a regulating principle. This is the more probable, because the same idea lies in the New Testament use of the noun, and pervades its applications in the language of the early Fathers down to the time of Constantine, as Credner has shown.(2) The "canon of the church" in the Clementine homilies;(3) the "ecclesiastical canon,"(4) and "the canon of the truth," in Clement and Irenaeus;(5) the "canon" of the faith in Polycrates,(6) the _regula fidei_ of Tertullian,(7) and the _libri regulares_ of Origen,(8) imply a _normative principle_. But we cannot a.s.sent to Credner"s view of the Greek word for _canon_ being an abbreviation of "Scriptures of canon,"(9) equivalent to _Scripturae legis_ in Diocletian"s Act(10)-a view too artificial, and unsanctioned by usage.
It is true that the word _canon_ was employed by Greek writers in the sense of a mere _list_; but when it was transferred to the Scripture books, it included the idea of a regulative and normal power-a list of books forming a rule or law, because the newly-formed Catholic Church required a standard of appeal in opposition to the Gnostics with their arbitrary use of sacred writings. There is a lack of evidence on behalf of its use before the books of the New Testament had been paralleled with those of the Old in authority and inspiration.
The earliest example of its application to a catalogue of the Old or New Testament books occurs in the Latin translation of Origen"s homily on Joshua, where the original seems to have been "canon."(11) The word itself is certainly in Amphilochius,(12) as well as in Jerome,(13) and Rufinus.(14) As the Latin translation of Origen has _canonicus_ and _canonizatus_, we infer that he used "canonical,"(15) opposed as it is to _apocryphus_ or _secretus_. The first occurrence of "canonical" is in the fifty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea, where it is contrasted with two other Greek words.(16) "_Canonized_ books,"(17) is first used in Athanasius"s 39th festal epistle. The kind of rule which the earliest fathers attributed to the Scriptures can only be conjectured; it is certain that they believed the Old Testament books to be a _divine_ and _infallible guide_. But the New Testament was not so considered till towards the close of the second century when the conception of a Catholic Church was realized. The latter collection was not called _Scripture_, or put on a par with the Old Testament as _sacred_ and _inspired_, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (about 180 A.D.) Hence, Irenaeus applies the epithets _divine_ and _perfect_ to the Scriptures; and Clement of Alexandria calls them _inspired_.
When distinctions were made among the Biblical writings other words(18) were employed, synonymous with "canonized."(19) The canon was thus a catalogue of writings forming a rule of truth, sacred, divine, revealed by G.o.d for the instruction of men. The rule was perfect for its purpose.
The word apocryphal(20) is used in various senses, which it is difficult to trace chronologically. Apocryphal books are,-
1st, Such as contain _secret_ or _mysterious_ things, books of the higher wisdom. It is thus applied to the Apocalypse by Gregory of Nyssa.(21) Akin to this is the second meaning.
2nd, Such as were _kept secret_ or withdrawn from public use. In this sense the word corresponds to the Hebrew _ganuz_.(22) So Origen speaking of the story of Susanna. The opposite of this is _read in public_,(23) a word employed by Eusebius.(24)
3rd, It was used of the secret books of the heretics by Clement(25) and Origen,(26) with the accessory idea of _spurious_, _pseudepigraphical_,(27) in opposition to the canonical writings of the Catholic Church. The book of Enoch and similar productions were so characterized.(28)
4th, Jerome applied it to the books in the Septuagint which are absent from the Hebrew canon, _i.e._, to the books which were _read_ in the church, the _ecclesiastical_ ones(29) occupying a rank next to the canonical. In doing so he had respect to the corresponding Hebrew epithet.
This was a misuse of the word _apocryphal_, which had a prejudicial effect on the character of the books in after-times.(30) The word, which he did not employ in an injurious sense, was adopted from him by Protestants after the Reformation, who gave it perhaps a sharper distinction than he intended, so as to imply a contrast somewhat disparaging to writings which were publicly read in many churches and put beside the canonical ones by distinguished fathers. The Lutherans have adhered to Jerome"s meaning longer than the Reformed; but the decree of the Council of Trent had some effect on both. The contrast between the canonical and apocryphal writings was carried to its utmost length by the Westminster divines, who a.s.serted that the former are inspired, the latter not.
CHAPTER II. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON FROM ITS BEGINNING TO ITS CLOSE.
The first important part of the Old Testament put together as a whole was the Pentateuch, or rather, the five books of Moses and Joshua. This was preceded by smaller doc.u.ments, which one or more redactors embodied in it.
The earliest things committed to writing were probably _the ten words_ proceeding from Moses himself, afterwards enlarged into the ten commandments which exist at present in two recensions (Exod. xx., Deut.
v.) It is true that we have the oldest form of the decalogue from the Jehovist not the Elohist; but that is no valid objection against the antiquity of the nucleus, out of which it arose. It is also probable that several legal and ceremonial enactments belong, if not to Moses himself, at least to his time; as also the Elohistic list of stations in Numbers x.x.xiii. To the same time belongs the song of Miriam in Exodus xv., probably consisting of a few lines at first, and subsequently enlarged; with a triumphal ode over the fall of Heshbon (Numbers xxi. 27-30). The little poetical piece in Numbers xxi. 17, 18, afterwards misunderstood and so taken literally, is post-Mosaic.
During the unsettled times of Joshua and the Judges there could have been comparatively little writing. The song of Deborah appeared, full of poetic force and fire. The period of the early kings was characterized not only by a remarkable development of the Hebrew people and their consolidation into a national state, but by fresh literary activity. Laws were written out for the guidance of priests and people; and the political organization of the rapidly growing nation was promoted by poetical productions in which spiritual life expressed its aspirations. Schools of prophets were inst.i.tuted by Samuel, whose literary efforts tended to purify the worship.
David was an accomplished poet, whose psalms are composed in lofty strains; and Solomon may have written a few odes. The building of the temple, and the arrangements connected with its worship, contributed materially to a written legislation.
During this early and flourishing period appeared the book of the Wars of Jehovah,(31) a heroic anthology, celebrating warlike deeds; and the book of Jashar,(32) also poetical. Jehoshaphat is mentioned as court-annalist to David and Solomon.(33) Above all, the Elohists now appeared, the first of whom, in the reign of Saul, was author of annals, beginning at the earliest time which were distinguished by genealogical and chronological details as well as systematic minuteness, by archaic simplicity, and by legal prescriptions more theoretical than practical. The long genealogical registers with an artificial chronology and a statement of the years of men"s lives, the dry narratives, the precise accounts of the gradual enlargement of divine laws, the copious description of the tabernacle and the inst.i.tution of divine worship, are wearisome, though pervaded by a theoretic interest which looks at everything from a legal point of view. A second or junior Elohist was less methodical and more fragmentary, supplying additional information, furnishing new theocratic details, and setting forth the relation of Israel to heathen nations and to G.o.d. In contrast with his predecessor, he has great beauty of description, which is exemplified in the account of Isaac"s sacrifice and the history of Joseph; in picturesque and graphic narratives interspersed with few reflections. His parallels to the later writer commonly called the Jehovist, are numerous. The third author, who lived in the time of Uzziah, though more mythological than the Elohists, was less formal. His stand-point is prophetic. The third doc.u.ment incorporated with the Elohistic ones formed an important part of the whole, exhibiting a vividness which the first lacked; with descriptions of persons and things from another stand-point. The Jehovist belonged to the northern kingdom; the Elohists were of Judah.
The state of the nation after Rehoboam was unfavorable to literature. When the people were threatened and attacked by other nations, divided among themselves in worship and all higher interests, rent by conflicting parties, the theocratic principle which was the true bond of union could not a.s.sert itself with effect. The people were corrupt; their religious life debased. The example of the kings was usually prejudicial to political healthiness. Contact with foreigners as well as with the older inhabitants of the land, hindered progress. In these circ.u.mstances the prophets were the true reformers, the advocates of political liberty, expositors of the principles that give life and stability to a nation. In Judah, Joel wrote prophetic discourses; in Israel, Amos and Hosea. Now, too, a redactor put together the Elohistic and Jehovistic doc.u.ments, making various changes in them, adding throughout sentences or words that seemed desirable, and suppressing what was unsuited to his taste. Several psalm-writers enriched the national literature after David. Learned men at the court of Hezekiah recast and enlarged (Proverbs xxv.-xxix.) the national proverbs, which bore Solomon"s name because the nucleus of an older collection belonged to that monarch. These literary courtiers were not prophets, but rather scribes. The book of Job was written, with the exception of Elihu"s later discourses, which were not inserted in it till after the return from Babylon; and Deuteronomy, with Joshua, was added to the preceding collection in the reign of Mana.s.seh. The gifted author of Deuteronomy, who was evidently imbued with the prophetic spirit, completed the Pentateuch, _i.e._, the five books of Moses and Joshua, revising the Elohist-Jehovistic work, and making various additions and alterations. He did the same thing to the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings; which received from him their present form. Immediately before and during the exile there were numerous authors and compilers. New psalms appeared, more or less national in spirit. Ezekiel, Jeremiah and others prophesied; especially an unknown seer who described the present condition of the people, predicting their coming glories and renovated worship in strains of far-reaching import.(34) This great prophet expected the regeneration of the nation from the pious portion of it, the prophets in particular, not from a kingly Messiah as Isaiah did; for the hopes resting on rulers out of David"s house had been disappointed. His aspirations turned to spiritual means. He was not merely an enthusiastic seer with comprehensive glance, but also a practical philosopher who set forth the doctrine of the innocent suffering for the guilty; differing therein from Ezekiel"s theory of individual reward and punishment in the present world-a theory out of harmony with the circ.u.mstances of actual life. The very misfortunes of the nation, and the signs of their return, excited within the n.o.bler spirits hopes of a brighter future, in which the flourishing reign of David should be surpa.s.sed by the universal worship of Jehovah. In consequence of their outward condition, the prophets of the exile were usually writers, like Ezekiel, not public speakers; and their announcement of glad tidings could only be transmitted privately from person to person. This explains in part the oblivion into which their names fell; so that the author or redactor of Jeremiah l., li.; the author of chapters xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10, xxiv.-xxvii., x.x.xiv., x.x.xv., inserted in Isaiah; and, above all, the Babylonian Isaiah, whom Hitzig improbably identifies with the high-priest Joshua, are unknown. After the return from Babylon the literary spirit manifested itself in the prophets of the restoration-Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi-who wrote to recall their countrymen to a sense of religious duties; though their ideas were borrowed in part from older prophets of more original genius. The book of Esther appeared, to make the observance of the purim feast, which was of Persian origin, more general in Palestine. The large historical work comprising the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, was compiled partly out of materials written by Ezra and Nehemiah, partly out of older historical records which formed a portion of the national literature. Several temple-psalms were also composed; a part of the present book of Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, whose tone and language betray its late origin; and Jonah, whose diction puts its date after the Babylonian captivity. The Maccabean age called forth the book of Daniel and various psalms. In addition to new productions there was an inclination to collect former doc.u.ments. To Zechariah"s authentic prophecies were added the earlier ones contained in chapters ix.-xiv.; and the Psalms were gradually brought together, being made up into divisions at different times; the first and second divisions proceeding from one redactor, the third from another, the fourth and fifth from a still later.
Various writings besides their own were grouped around the names of earlier prophets, as was the case with Isaiah and Jeremiah.
The literature is more indebted for its best const.i.tuents to the prophetic than to the priestly order, because the prophets were preachers of repentance and righteousness whose great aim was to make Israel a Jehovah-worshipping nation to the exclusion of other G.o.ds. Their utterances were essentially ethical and religious; their pictures of the future subjective and ideal. There was silently elaborated in their schools a spiritual monotheism, over against the crude polytheism of the people generally-a theocratic ideal inadequately apprehended by gross and sensuous Israel-Jehovism simple and sublime amid a sacerdotal worship which left the heart impure while cleansing the hands. Instead of taking their stand upon the law, with its rules of worship, its ceremonial precepts and penalties against transgressors, the prophets set themselves above it, speaking slightingly of the forms and customs which the people took for the whole of religion. To the view of such as were prepared to receive a faith that looked for its realization to the future, they helped to create a millennium, in which the worship of Jehovah alone should become the basis of a universal religion for humanity. In addition to the prophetic literature proper, they wrote historical works also. How superior this literature is to the priestly, appears from a comparison of the Kings and Chronicles. The subjective underlies the one; the objective distinguishes the other. Faith in Jehovah, clothed, it may be in sensible or historical forms, characterizes the one; reference of an outward order to a divine source, the other. The sanct.i.ty of a people under the government of a righteous G.o.d, is the object of the one; the sanct.i.ty of inst.i.tutions, that of the other. Even when the prophets wrote history, _the facts_ are subordinate to _the belief_. Subjective purposes colored their representation of real events.
To them we are indebted for the Messianic idea, the hope of a better time in which their high ideal of the theocracy should be realized. With such belief in the future, with pious aspirations enlivening their patriotism, did they comfort and encourage their countrymen. The hope, general or indefinite at first, was afterwards attached to the house of David, out of which a restorer of the theocracy was expected, a king pre-eminent in righteousness, and marvelously gifted. It was not merely a political but a religious hope, implying the thorough purification of the nation, the extinction of idolatry, the general spread and triumph of true religion.
The pious wishes of the prophets, often repeated, became a sort of doctrine, and contributed to sustain the failing spirit of the people. The indefinite idea of a golden age was commoner than that of a personal prince who should reign in equity and peace. Neither was part of the national faith, like the law, or the doctrine of sacrifice; and but a few of the prophets portrayed a king, in their description of the period of ideal prosperity.
The man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the national literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a canon. He was the leader in restoring the theocracy after the exile, "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." As we are told that he brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation and read it publicly, the idea naturally arises that he was the final redactor of the Pentateuch, separating it from the historical work consisting of Joshua and the subsequent writings, of which it formed the commencement. Such was the first canon given to the Jewish Church after its reconstruction-ready for temple service as well as synagogue use. Henceforward the Mosaic book became an authoritative guide in spiritual, ecclesiastical, and civil matters, as we infer from various pa.s.sages in Ezra and Nehemiah and from the chronicler"s own statements in the book bearing his name. The doings of Ezra with regard to the Scriptures are deduced not only from what we read of him in the Biblical book that bears his name, but also from the legend in the fourth book of Ezdras,(35) where it is related that he dictated by inspiration to five ready writers ninety-four books; the first twenty-four of which he was ordered to publish openly that the worthy and unworthy might read, but reserved the last seventy for the wise. Though the twenty-four books of the Old Testament cannot be attributed to him, the fact that he copied and wrote portions need not be questioned. He edited _the law_, making the first canon or collection of books, and giving it an authority which it had not before. Talmudic accounts a.s.sociate with him the men of the great synagogue. It is true that they are legendary, but there is a foundation of fact beneath the fanciful superstructure. As to Ezra"s treatment of the Pentateuch, or his specific mode of redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture. Yet it is safe to affirm that he added;-making new precepts and practices either in place of or beside older ones. Some things he removed as unsuited to the altered circ.u.mstances of the people; others he modified. He threw back later enactments into earlier times. It is difficult to discover all the parts that betray his hand. Some elaborate priestly details show his authorship most clearly. If his hand be not visible in Leviticus, chap.
xvii.-xxvi.; a writer not far removed from his time is observable; Ezekiel or some other. It is clear that some of the portion (xxv. 19-22; xxvi.
3-45) is much later than the Elohists, and belongs to the exile or post-exile period. But great difficulty attaches to the separation of the sources here used; even after Kayser"s acute handling of them. It is also perceptible from Ezekiel xx. 25, 26, that the clause in Exodus xiii. 15, "but all the first-born of my children I redeem," was added after the exile, since the prophet shows his unacquaintance with it. The statute that all which openeth the womb should be burnt in sacrifice to Jehovah, appeared inhuman not only to Ezekiel, but to Ezra or his a.s.sociates in re-editing the law; and therefore the clause about the redemption of every first-born male was subjoined. Ezra, a second Moses in the eyes of the later Jews, did not scruple to refer to Moses what was of recent origin, and to deal freely with the national literature. Such was the first canon-that of Ezra the priest and scribe.
The origin of the great synagogue is noticed in Ezra x. 16, and described more particularly in Nehemiah viii.-x., the members being apparently enumerated in x. 1-27; at least the Megila Jer. (i. 5) and Midrash Ruth (-- 3) speak of an a.s.sembly of eighty-five elders, who are probably found in the last pa.s.sage. One name, however, is wanting, for only eighty-four are given; and as Ezra is not mentioned among them, the conjecture of Krochmal that it has dropped out of x. 9, may be allowed. Another tradition gives the number as one hundred and twenty, which may be got by adding the "chief of the fathers" enumerated in Ezra viii. 1-14 to the hundred and two heads of families in Ezra ii. 2-58. Whether the number was the same at the commencement as afterwards is uncertain. Late Jewish writers, however, such as Abarbanel, Abraham ben David, Ben Maimun, &c., speak as if it consisted of the larger number at the beginning; and have no scruple in p.r.o.nouncing Ezra president, rather than Nehemiah.(36)
The oldest extra-biblical mention of the synagogue, is in the Mishnic treatise _Pirke Aboth_, where it is said, "Moses received the laws from Mount Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the great synagogue. These last spake these words: "Be slow in judgment; appoint many disciples; make a hedge for the law." "(37) In the Talmudic _Baba Bathra_, their biblical doings are described: "Moses wrote his book, the section about Balaam and job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses of the law. Samuel wrote his book and judges and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms _by_ (?)(38) ten elders, by Adam the first man, by Melchizedek, by Abraham, by Moses, by Heman, by Jeduthun, by Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book, the books of Kings and Lamentations.
Hezekiah and his friends wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Coheleth; the men of the great synagogue, Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of Chronicles down to himself."(39) This pa.s.sage has its obscurities. What is meant by the verb _write_!(40) Does it mean _composition_ and then something else; the former in the first part of the pa.s.sage, and _editing_ in the second?
Rashi explains it of _composition_ throughout, which introduces absurdity.
The most obvious interpretation is that which understands the verb of _writing_ in one place, and _editing_ in the second. But it is improbable that the author should have used the same word in different senses, in one and the same pa.s.sage. Bloch(41) understands it of _copying_ or _writing out_, a sense that suits the procedure of the men of the great synagogue in regard to Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, &c., but is inapplicable to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, &c. It is probable enough that the synagogue scribes put into their present form and made the first authorized copies of the works specified. The Boraitha, however, is not clear, and may only express the opinion of a private individual in a confused way. Simon the Just is said to have belonged to the remnants of the synagogue. As Ezra is called "a ready scribe," and his labors in connection with the law were important, he may have organized a body of literary men who should work in harmony, attending, among other things, to the collection and preservation of the national literature; or they may have been an a.s.sociation of patriotic men who voluntarily rallied round the heads of the new state, to support them in their fundamental reforms.
The company of scribes mentioned in 1 Maccabees does not probably relate to it.(42) A succession of priests and scribes, excited at first by the reforming zeal of one whom later Jews looked upon as a second Moses, labored in one department of literary work till the corporation ceased to exist soon after, if not in the time of Simon, _i.e._, from about 445 B.C.
till about 200; for we identify the Simon celebrated in Sirach l. 1-26 with Simon II., son of the high-priest Onias II., B.C. 221-202; not with Simon I., son and successor of the high-priest Onias I., B.C. 310-291.
Josephus"s opinion, indeed, is contrary; but leading Jewish scholars, such as Zunz, Herzfeld, Krochmal, Derenbourg, Jost, and Bloch differ from him.
To the great synagogue must be referred the compilation of the second canon, containing Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets. It was not completed prior to 300 B.C., because the book of Jonah was not written before. This work may be called a historical parable composed for a didactic purpose, giving a milder, larger view of Jehovah"s favor than the orthodox one, that excluded the Gentiles. Ruth, containing an idyllic story with an unfinished genealogy attached, meant to glorify the house of David, and presenting a kindred spirit towards a people uniformly hated, was appended to Judges; but was subsequently transferred to the third canon. It was written immediately after the return from the Babylonian captivity; for the Chaldaising language points to this date, notwithstanding the supposed archaisms discovered in it by some. In like manner, the Lamentations, originally added to Jeremiah, were afterwards put into the later or third canon. Joshua, which had been separated from the five books of Moses with which it was closely joined at first, formed, with the other historical portion (Judges, Samuel, Kings), the proper continuation of Ezra"s canon. The prophets included the three greater and twelve minor. With Isaiah"s authentic oracles were incorporated the last twenty-seven chapters, belonging for the most part to an anonymous prophet of the exile, besides several late pieces inserted in the first thirty-nine chapters. Men of prophetic gifts wrote in the name of distinguished prophets, and put their productions with those of the latter, or adapted and wrote them over after their own fashion. The fiftieth and fifty-first chapters of Jeremiah show such over-writing. To Zechariah"s authentic oracles were attached chapters ix.-xiv., themselves made up of two parts (ix.-xi., xii.-xiv.) belonging to different times and authors prior to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Babylonians.
The character of the synagogue"s proceedings in regard to the books of Scripture can only be deduced from the conduct of Ezra himself, as well as the prevailing views and wants of the times. The scribes who began with Ezra, seeing how he acted, would naturally follow his example, not hesitating to revise the text _in substance_ as well as form.(43) They did not refrain from changing what had been written, or from inserting fresh matter. Some of their novelties can be discerned even in the Pentateuch.
Their chief work, however, related to the _form_ of the text. They put into a proper form and state the text of the writings they studied, perceiving less need for revising the _matter_. What they did was in good faith, with honest intention.
The prophetic canon ended with Malachi"s oracles. And it was made sometime after he prophesied, because the general consciousness that the function ceased with him required a considerable period for its growth. The fact that it included Jonah and Ruth brings the completion after 300 B.C., as already stated. There are no definite allusions to it till the second century B.C. Daniel speaks of a pa.s.sage in Jeremiah being in "the books"
or "writings;"(44) and the prologue of Jesus Sirach presupposes its formation. Such was the second canon, which had been made up gradually (444-290 B.C.)
Another view of the collection in question has been taken by various scholars. According to a pa.s.sage in the second book of Maccabees, the second canon originated with Nehemiah, who "gathered together the acts of the kings and the prophets and (psalms) of David, and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts."(45) These words are obscure. They occur in a letter purporting to be sent by the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to the Jews in Egypt, which contains apocryphal things; a letter which a.s.signs to Nehemiah the merit of various arrangements rather belonging to Ezra. It is difficult to understand the meaning of "the epistles of the kings concerning the offerings." If they were the doc.u.ments of heathen or Persian kings favorable to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple, would they not have been rejected from a collection of sacred books belonging to the chosen people? They might perhaps have been adopted had they been interwoven with the holy books themselves, like portions of Ezra and Nehemiah; but they could not have formed a distinct part of the national literature, because they were foreign and heathen. Again, "the psalms of David" cannot have existed in the time of Nehemiah, if the phrase includes the whole collection. It may perhaps refer to the first three divisions of the book, as Herzfeld thinks; but these contain many odes which are not David"s; while earlier ones belong to the last two divisions of the Psalm-book. In like manner, "the prophets" could not all have belonged to this canon; neither Malachi, who was later, nor Jonah.
The account will not bear strict examination, and must be p.r.o.nounced apocryphal. Nehemiah was a statesman, not a priest or scribe; a politician, not a literary man. It is true that he may have had a.s.sistants, or committed the work to competent hands; but this is conjectural. The account of his supposed canon hardly commends itself by inherent truthfulness or probability, though it is accepted by Ewald and Bleek.
When the great synagogue ceased, there was an interval during which it is not clear whether the sacred books were neglected, except by private individuals; or whether they were studied, copied, and collected by a body of scribes. Perhaps the scribes and elders of the Hasmonaean time were active at intervals in this department. The inst.i.tution of a senate by Judas Maccabaeus is supposed to be favored by 2 Maccabees (chapter i.
10-ii. 18); but the pa.s.sage furnishes poor evidence of the thing. Judas is there made to write to Egypt in the year of the Seleucidae 188, though he died thirty-six years before, _i.e._, 152. Other places have been added as corroborative, viz., 2 Maccab. iv. 44, xi. 27; 1 Maccab. vii. 33. Some go so far as to state that Jose ben Joeser was appointed its first president at that time. The Midrash in Beres.h.i.th Rabba (-- 65) makes him one of the sixty Ha.s.sidim who were treacherously murdered by Alcimus; but this is neither in the first book of the Maccabees (chapter vii.) nor in Josephus,(46) and must be p.r.o.nounced conjectural. It is impossible to fix the exact date of Jose ben Joeser in the Hasmonean period. Pirke Aboth leaves it indefinite. Jonathan, Judas Maccabaeus"s successor, when writing to the Lacedaemonians, speaks of the _gerusia_ or senate as well as _the people_ of the Jews; whence we learn that the body existed as early as the time of Judas.(47) Again, Demetrius writes to Simon, as also to _the elders_ and _nation_ of the Jews.(48) After Jonathan and Simon, it may have been suspended for a while, in consequence of the persecution and anarchy prevailing in Judea; till the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem succeeded it, under Hyrca.n.u.s I. Though the traces of a senate in the Maccabaean epoch are slight, the Talmud countenances its existence.(49) We believe that it was earlier than Judas Maccabaeus. Of its const.i.tution nothing is known; but it was probably aristocratic. The Hasmonean prince would naturally exert a commanding influence over it. The great synagogue had been a kind of democratic council, consisting of scribes, doctors or teachers, and priests.(50) Like their predecessors of the great synagogue, the Hasmonaean elders revised the text freely, putting into it explanatory or corrective additions, which were not always improvements. The way in which they used the book of Esther, employing it as a medium of Halachite prescription, shows a treatment involving little idea of sacredness attaching to the Hagiographa.
We are aware that the existence of this body is liable to doubt, and that the expressions belonging to it in Jewish books, whether elders or _gerusia_, have been applied to the great synagogue or to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, or even to the elders of any little town or hamlet; but it is difficult to explain all on that hypothesis, without attributing confusion to the places where they occur. If the body in question be not allowed, an interval of about sixty years elapsed between the great synagogue and the Sanhedrim, during which the hagiographical writings were comparatively neglected, though literary activity did not cease. No authoritative a.s.sociation, at least, dealt with them. This is improbable. It is true that we read of no distinguished teachers in the interval, except Antigonus of Socho, disciple of Simon the Just; but the silence can hardly weigh against a reasonable presumption. One thing is clear, viz., that Antigonus did not reach down to the time of the first pair that presided over the Sanhedrim.