secution that revived the popularity of the book? Did CHAP. VI. the attitude of the Roman Empire recall the savage purpose of Haman, and restore the narrative of Esther

to favour? Or, was it the resemblance between Haman, the Agagite, and Herod, the Idumean?

Chronicles.

We mention the Books of Chronicles last of all, not The Books of because, in their case, canonicity has been more disputed than in the case of the three last-mentioned books, but because in the traditional order of the Canon they present the appearance of being added as an appendix. The detachment of Ezra and Nehemiah from the main work, their admission into the Canon as a separate narrative, and their position there immediately in front of Chronicles, form a line of probable evidence, that the canonicity of Chronicles was recognised at a considerably later date than that of Ezra and Nehemiah. But at what date did this take place? In our Saviour's time, the Canon of Hebrew Scripture very probably concluded with Chronicles. The real pertinency of the argument which has been alleged in favour of this view, based upon our Lord's appeal to the whole category of innocent blood shed 'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah,' is only then understood, when it is seen that He is not referring to the limits of time, from Abel to Joash (Matt. xxiii. 35, Luke xi. 51, cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22), but to the limits of the sacred Canon, from Genesis to Chronicles from the first to the last book in Hebrew Scripture: it was equivalent to an appeal, in Christian ears, to the whole range of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

We have nothing further to go upon than probability, in assuming that the four last-named books, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Chronicles, were accepted

CHAP. VI. into the Canon at a later date than the other writings of the Hagiographa. If so, they may have occupied, for some time, the position of 'Antilegomena,' or disputed books, accepted by some Jews, and rejected by others. The books of the Hagiographa were not continuously read in the Synagogues. They were not, therefore, estimated by the same test of public usage. It would be possible, I should think, for a book to hover a long time in suspense, having been admitted into the sacred list at a time of popular religious enthusiasm, but having afterwards incurred suspicion, in consequence of doubts as to its orthodoxy, raised by the factious jealousy or officious zeal of learned scribes. But, once admitted, a book was never likely to be excluded. The dread of novelty, which protected the Canon against encroachment, helped also to appease the resentment against writings that had already received a quasi-recognition. The fact of a book having once been received within the list of the national Scripture never failed to outweigh, in the long run, the scruples that were felt at its doubtful orthodoxy.

There are unfortunately wide gaps in the external evidence, which stretches over more than two centuries of Jewish literature, from the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, written about 132 B. C., down to the Contra Apionem of Josephus, written at the close of the first century A. D. But the external evidence requires separate consideration, and we must devote to it the following chapter.

CHAPTER VII.

THE THIRD CANON (continued).

clesiasticus

1. The Greek Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. This writing CHAP. VII. has already been referred to; and attention has been Greek Pro drawn to the importance of its testimony, the earliest logue to Ecthat has come down to us, respecting the 'tripartite 132 B.C. division of the Canon.' The vagueness of the writer's words, in designating the third division, stands in sharp contrast to the precision with which he describes the first two divisions by the very names that have traditionally been attached to them. The vagueness, such as it is, is probably due to the hitherto undefined character of the canonicity, granted to the miscellaneous contents of the new group. But the suggestion which has sometimes been made, that the writer of the Prologue considered his grandfather's work could ultimately take rank with those 'other' writings, among the Scriptures of the Jews, is not justified by the language of the opening sentence. Its importance makes it desirable I should quote it here in extenso, rambling and obscure though it is.

'Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets and by the others that have followed upon them, for which it is due to commend Israel for instruction and wisdom; and since it behoves those who read not only to become skilful themselves, but also such as love learning to be able to

CHAP. VII. profit them that are without, both by speaking and writ

ing; my grandfather Jesus, seeing he had much given himself to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of the fathers, and had gotten therein sufficient proficiency, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom, to the intent that those who love learning and become addicted to these things, might profit yet more by living according to the law.'

The exact meaning of the last sentence may be obscure; but there is no thought of putting the Wisdom of Sirach into competition with the writings of the fathers.' It is affirmed that the author's sole object was to assist others to a closer walk in accordance with the law, and that his assiduous studies in 'the law, prophets, and the other books' especially fitted him for the task of counselling them. The translator concludes the Prologue with the remark, that he intends his version 'for them also who are in a strange country and prepare themselves in manners to live after the law.'

The translator, if he were like the rest of his fellowcountrymen, would certainly not have placed 'the other' writings on the same level with 'the law and the prophets'; still less, we believe, would he have regarded any work, so recent as that of his grandfather, as deserving of a place among 'the books of the fathers.'

His view of the other books' may be thus explained. He was aware of the two divisions of Holy Scripture, the law and the prophets,' which had long stood over against, and separate from, the great mass of Hebrew literature. But he was aware also that certain other writings had recently been gradually raised above the rest of Jewish literature, and had become separated

from it, reverence, affection, and usage causing them to CHAP. VII. be treated as similar, though not to be reckoned as equal, in holiness, to the law and the prophets.' Whether this third group already contained in 132 B. C. the whole of the Kethubim, may reasonably be doubted.

Septuagint

250 B.C.

2. The Septuagint Version. It is disappointing to 2. The find how little evidence to the Canon is to be derived Version. from the LXX version. The version must have been com- begun circ. menced by the translation of the Law' about the year 250 B. C. The translation of other books followed; but, outside 'the Law,' there seems to have been no unity of plan. The books were translated by different hands, and at different times. Versions of the same book competed, as it were, for general acceptance. Those were accepted which found most general favour. With the possible exception of the Pentateuch1, the version contains simply those renderings of books which, having in course of time most recommended themselves to the Jewish residents in Alexandria, outlived, because they were preferred to, all other renderings.

plete, circ.

132 B.C.

We infer from the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus that in possibly com 132 B.C. a Greek translation already existed of 'the Law and the Prophets and the other writings.' 'For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them and not only these things (i. e. the Wisdom of Sirach), but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.'

The translation of some disputed books of the Hagiographa had clearly taken place before the year 132 B.C.

1 That a Translation of the Torah was executed at the request or at the expense of an Egyptian prince is the least that may be inferred from the Jewish tradition underlying the Letter of Aristeas and the statements of Josephus (Ant. xii. 2, Cont. Ap. ii. 4) and Philo (Vita Mosis ii. 5).

L