28 See Suicer"s _Thesaurus_, _s.v._
29 ????a ??a????s??e?a, libri ecclesiastici.
30 In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary sense, of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors whose names they bear. _Opp._ vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.
31 Num. xxi. 14.
32 Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.
33 2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.
34 Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.
35 Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld"s _Messias Judaerorum_, p. 107.
36 See Buxtorf"s _Tiberias_, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld"s _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwolfter Excursus.
37 Chapter i.
38 ?? ???. Does this mean _for, instead of_, as Bloch understands it?
Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense, "some of which, however, were composed by;" but this is far-fetched. See _Antiquitates Ebraeorum_, p. 13.
39 Fol. 15, 1.
40 ???.
_ 41 Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebraischen Literatur_, p. 127, &c.
42 vii. 12, s??a???? ??aat???, not ? s??a????.
43 That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write no religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the face of the Talmudic saying, ???? ?????? ????? ???? (writers of Halacoth are like a burner of the law). This may apply to the late scribes or bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater part of Geiger"s _Urschrift_ is based on the opposite idea. As the reverence for former scholars increased, the Talmudic saying might be accepted.
See _Temura_, 14 b.
44 Chapter ix. 2.
45 Chapter ii. 13.
46 Antiq. xii. 10, 1.
47 Josephus"s Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.
48 1 Maccab., xiii. 36.
49 Sota, 24 a.
50 ??????, Nehemiah viii. 3.
51 Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the book to the men of the great synagogue who are said to have acted under the influence of the divine spirit, separates the three apocryphal pieces from the rest; but this arose from the desire of discountenancing the idea that the work consists of romance and legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of justifying the canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by the great synagogue, _ex gr._, the a.s.sumption that the second part arose out of a series of unconnected _Megiloth_ which were not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash maintains that Daniel, or the person writing in his name, was no prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but a man of visions, an _apocalyptist_. It was a general belief, that _visions_ had come into the place of _prophecy_ when the book appeared. The Greek translation could not have been long after the original, because it is used in the First Book of Maccabees. The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was inconsiderable. The translator not only departed from, but added to, the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the history of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of these had been written before is uncertain. Most of the traditions they embody were probably reduced to writing by the translator, and presented in his peculiar style. The a.s.sertion, that Josephus was unacquainted with these additions is hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel"s fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially of _the books_ he wrote (t? ???a), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks of _one book_ (x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.
52 ??????, translated by the Greek ??????afa, hagiographa.
53 It has been thought that the phrase ???? ????? in the ninth verse alludes to the great council or synagogue. This conjecture is plausible on various grounds. The reasons for attributing the epilogue to a later time than the writer of the book appear to be stronger than those a.s.signing it to the original author. The 13th and 14th verses in particular, are unlike Coheleth.
54 t? ???a p?t??a ???a; t? ???p? t?? ?????. The younger Sirach does not use ??afa?, which would have been a proper translation of _c"tubim_. Does not this ???a imply the non-application of the specific t.i.tle _c"tubim_ to the hagiographa at that time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?
_ 55 Contra Apion_, i. 8.
56 In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, the duumvirate or suggoth, consisting of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-din, are referred to Hyrca.n.u.s"s creation. Zunz affirms that it originated in the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142 B.C.
57 Antiq., xiv., 9.
_ 58 Der gerichtliche Beweis_, p. 68.
59 The Sanhedrim _properly so called_ ceased under R. Judah I., Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at Sepphoris before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to him, on his removal to that place. The court was then merged in the patriarch.
60 ?????? literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.
61 See Furst"s _Der Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w._ pp. 147, 148.
_ 62 Tract. Sabbat._ ch. i.
63 Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.
64 Yadayim v. 3.
65 See Graetz"s _Kohelet_, pp. 162, 163.
66 The sages wished to p.r.o.nounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words "What advantage has man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?" &c., &c.-Sabbat. 30 b.
So also in the Midrash: "The sages wished to p.r.o.nounce Coheleth apocryphal," &c., &c.-Vayyikra rabba 161 b.
67 R. Simeon ben Asai said, "I have received it from the mouth of the 72 elders in the day that R. Eleasar ben Asaria was appointed elder, that the Song of Songs and Coheleth pollute the hands."-Yadayim v.
3.
68 This language was based on a figurative interpretation of the Song.
One who said, "Whoever reads such writings as Sirach and the later books loses all part in everlasting life," can have no weight. He outheroded the Palestinian tradition respecting the Jewish productions of later origin, which merely affirms that they "do not pollute the hands."-(_Toss. Yadayim_, c. 2)
_ 69 Studien zur Geschichte, u. s. w._, p. 150, &c.
70 Geiger"s _Urschrift_, p. 288.
71 See De Goeje in the _Theologisch Tijdschriff Jaargang II._ (1868) p.
179, &c.
72 Zunz"s _Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage_, pp. 101, 102.
73 V. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen.