CHAP. IX. a Greek translation, that Ecclesiasticus and the First of Maccabees failed to find their way into the Canon at the close of the first century A. D. Nor do other books of our 'Apocrypha,' which were originally composed in Hebrew —e. g. Tobit (?), Judith, Baruch i-iii. 8—appear ever to have been put forward by Jewish writers as worthy to take rank with the acknowledged Scriptures of the nation. Defile the hands.' The fact, however, that so recent a book as Ecclesiasticus should, even by mistake, be referred to with the formula of quotation from Scripture, shows that the tendency to import a favourite work into the sacred list was a real danger in the Jewish, as well as in the Christian, Church. To guard against such a profanation, it was incumbent upon the Jewish teachers to devise some plan, by which the compass of the Canon should be rigidly preserved, and the sanctity of a book maintained, by careful tradition. For this purpose a strangely artificial standard of canonicity was, more Rabbinorum, adopted. In order to preserve the Scriptures from a profane or careless handling, the Rabbins laid down the rule, that to touch the Sacred Books was to incur ceremonial defilement. The results of this rule made it necessary that the books should be kept well out of reach of common touch. It also became necessary to declare precisely what books were included in the Canon and would therefore communicate defilement, and what books could be handled without conveying such effects. The question of canonicity or non-canonicity soon resolved itself into the question, whether a book 'defiled the hands,' or whether it did not. If it did, it was because it belonged to the Canon of Scripture; if it did not, it was because it was not included in the sacred register of 'the Twenty-four.' The remembrance of the disputes which this test occasioned is preserved in a treatise of CHAP. IX. the Mishnah (Yadaim, or 'hands')1. Without an explanation of the phrase, 'defile the hands,' Jewish criticisms. upon the canonicity of books of Scripture would, indeed, convey no intelligible meaning; but, provided with this explanation, we gain a conception both of the freedom with which questions of canonicity were discussed, and of the finality with which custom had practically decided the compass of the Canon before the Rabbinic discussions in the first and second centuries A. D. 'Hidden' The need was also felt of other phrases to complete the Rabbinic definition of 'canonicity'; one, which would convey the idea of disputed books which it was not advisable to read publicly as Canonical Scripture, and another for undoubtedly uncanonical or downright heretical books, which it was advisable to eschew altogether. The former idea was expressed by the term Disputed or 'genuzim,' or 'hidden,' which was, probably, originally Books applied to worn-out copies of the rolls of Scriptures that (D). were buried or consigned to a special chamber designed for their reception 2, and were thus put out of sight and separated from the rolls kept, for purposes of public reading, in the 'case' or 'théké3' within the 'ark' of the Synagogue. In this category of books preserved as ancient, but not adapted for public reading, the Rabbins seem to have placed the books whose canonicity was disputed, or whose interpretation gave rise to especial perplexity. The 'genuzim,' however, according to this explanation, were quite different, in spite of the similarity 1 Cf. Yadaim, iii. 5, 'All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.' 2 Called the 'Geniza.' 3 apta, p’a, Ohкn. The 'ark' or chest was the 'n = kißwτós, cf. Meg. iii. 1, Taan. ii. 1-2, Chrys. Orat. adv. Jud. vi. 7 (ed. Migne, Tom. i. p. 914). CHAP. IX. in the derivation of the word, from 'Apocrypha'; the name denotes doubt rather than final rejection. As there is no evidence to prove that, in the first cent. A.D., a lesson was read from the Hagiographa, we must suppose that the relegation to the genuzim' of 'disputed' books, such as Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, (see chap. x.) implies the use of the Hagiographa, for purposes of 'Midrash,' for the public interpretation (cf. Luke iv. 17-21) of the Prophets' in the Synagogues. Extraneous or outside Books .(חיצונים) For rejection from the Canon, the term 'extraneous,' 'outside,' was used. The writings 'outside' the Canon (Sepharîm Khîtzōnîm, 'books that are outside') correspond more closely to our conventional conception of 'Apocrypha,' and we find designated by this term the First Book of Maccabees ('the Megillah of the house of the Asmoneans'), Ecclesiasticus ('the Proverbs of the Son of Sira'), Wisdom ('the Wisdom of Solomon') as well as books by heretics, Sadducees, Greek Philosophers, or Christians1. Accordingly we find the maxim laid down in general terms, It is forbidden to read in the “extraneous" books.' (Kohel. Rabba, 84 c, quoted by Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, Leipz. 1886, p. 81.) But the employment of the two phrases in Rabbinic writing is not free from obscurity. The distinction which has here been given seems to offer the most probable explanation (cf. Nöldeke, Die alttest. Literatur, 1868, p. 238). 1 Cf. Sanh. xi. 1, quoted by Fürst, Kanon d. Alt. Test., p. 97. But see Grätz (M. G. W. J. 1886), who renders: 'R. Akiba said, Whoso readeth in the "extraneous" (i. e. Judeo-Christian) books, hath no part in the world to come. But books, like Ben Sira, written since the days of the prophets a man may read, just as he reads a letter.' Buhl, p. 8. CHAPTER X. LATER JEWISH TESTIMONY. uncritical. AFTER the time of Josephus, we must look to Rab- CHAP. X. binic literature for any additional Jewish testimony. Rabbinic Unfortunately, very little value can be assigned to the evidence testimony of the Talmud, and of Rabbinical literature generally, in questions of historical criticism. The Rabbinic writings abound in matter full of useful illustration; but the chronological uncertainty which envelops so much of Talmudic tradition, the fragmentary and discursive character of its contents, the indefiniteness of its allusions, the technical nature of the subjects which it handles, the unsatisfactory condition of the text, combine to make us distrust its critical worth, wherever accuracy of date is requisite. It is, therefore, advisable to treat this branch of the subject separately, and at no great length. As evidence for our special purpose, Rabbinical statements generally tend to confirm the conclusions to which we have already come; but their principal interest consists in the light which they throw upon the attitude of Jewish teachers towards the subject of the Canon. Two Titles of Scripture1. Two of the commonest titles of the Hebrew Scripture, employed in Rabbinic literature, reveal the general acceptance of the Canon both in the 1 See Excursus E. CHAP. X. actual extent and in the tripartite arrangement, which, as we have seen, it most probably possessed at the close of the first century A.D. The one title, 'the Four and and 7 wenty Twenty Books or Holy Writings,' is doubly significant1. The Four Law, It excludes the number 'twenty-two,' which, with its transference of Ruth and Lamentations to the Prophets,' was adopted, probably in all cases, under the influence of the LXX version 2 (cf. Josephus, Melito, and Origen); and, further, as a title, it closes the door against the introduction of any apocryphal or doubtful books. The importance of its usage, in popularly defining the limits of the Canon, receives an instructive illustration from the sentence, 'Whoso bringeth into his house more than the Four and Twenty Holy Writings, brings into it confusion' (cf. Fer. Sanhedr. x. 1). Another title, which became the regular designation of the Hebrew Bible, 'The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings,' occurs so frequently in Rabbinic writings, that its significance may easily be overlooked. The Jews, by adopting this somewhat cumbrous name, testified to the deep and lasting impression produced by the gradual growth of the Canon. They acknowledged that their Bible was not strictly one collection, but the result of three successive collections. The name of the whole is threefold, and of such a kind that each separate title could be applied with justice to either of the other two divisions. Thus, although the name 'Torah' (vóμos, Law), was specially employed of the first division, it was capable of being applied to the whole collection (cf. John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 21). Again, the name 'Nebiim' 1 For the early Jewish use of this number, cf. Bab. Taanith 8 a, Kohel. Rabba, fol. 116 a, on xii. 11. 2 See Chap. xii. |