CHAP. XI. prohibited (cf. Megillath Taanith, xii. 30: Texte de la M.T., Derenbourg, Hist. de la Pal. pp. 442-444). Or, it may have been objected, that the Feast of Purim was not of ancient origin; and that its celebration, having certain resemblances to the usages of a Persian Feast (Fûrdigan), gave occasion to misunderstanding, and was apt to be Esther's confounded with heathen practices 1. For some such place among Genuzim. reason, or for the simpler reason that the book had locally fallen into disrepute on account of its omission of the Sacred Name, Esther was not included in the list that the Bishop of Sardis obtained from his enquiries in the East.

judice naturally per

tradition.

In all probability, the Book had, temporarily and only locally, been placed among the Genuzim. For reasons which have not transpired, it was withdrawn from public use. But it was not placed amongst the Khîtzōnîm. It was 'disputed,' not 'rejected.' This distinction, on the part of Syrian Jewish converts, a Greek Bishop would scarcely be able to appreciate.

To Christian readers the character of the book may very naturally have given rise to difficulties. Its spirit and teaching seemed to have little in common with the Not under New Testament. The knowledge that its canonicity stood: prewas not universally accepted by the Jews, would be petuated by enough for those who were prejudiced against it. Some, too, who appear to advocate its exclusion from the list of the Old Testament Scriptures, merely repeat the opinion of previous writers without attempting to investigate the question afresh. Jerome, in his Preface to Esther, records no adverse Jewish opinion. Aphraates, circ. 400, who was well instructed in Hebrew tradition, omits no book from the Hebrew Canon (Buhl). We may fairly assume from

1 See Lagarde (Gesam. Abhandl., quoted by Robertson Smith, O.T.J.C., p. 161 sq.).

what we know of Patristic methods, that the list of CHAP. XI. Melito, in the History of Eusebius, will account, in great measure, for the exclusion of Esther from late Christian lists of the Hebrew Canon. On such a question, the Fathers, who knew no Hebrew, were wont to rely on earlier tradition, and seek no fresh testimony 1.

But the adverse evidence of the Fathers quoted above, although it illustrates the independence of local Jewish opinion upon the Canon, is not sufficient to shake our confidence in the claim of Esther to its place in the Hebrew Scriptures.

(+253) omits

adds

The only other important variations in the contents 2, Origen as distinct from the variations in the order, of the Min. Proph Hebrew Canon, as reported by a Christian father, Epistle occur in the list of Origen (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25), in which are to be noticed the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the inclusion of a work entitled 'The Epistle' along with Jeremiah. The omission of the Twelve Prophets is undoubtedly due to an inadvertency, either on the part of Origen himself, or of Eusebius, or of some copyist. The addition of 'The Epistle,' by which we must probably understand the Book of Baruch, indicates that Origen gives the contents of the Hebrew Canon as they were represented in the LXX version.

1 On the influence of Eusebius upon the lists of Gregory of Nazianzus and Amphilochius, see Westcott, Bible in the Church, pp. 167.

2 We ought, perhaps, to mention the omission of Chronicles in the earliest Syrian Version. The books of Chronicles are not commented on by Ephrem Syrus; while Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have excluded Job, Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah. It does not appear probable that such omissions were based on any tradition of a shorter Hebrew Canon. Rather, they reflect the working of somewhat arbitrary subjective principles. (Cf. Buhl, pp. 52, 53). Is not the omission also of Esther, in Melito's list, to be attributed to the influence of similar doubts, entertained with as little historical reason, in the Syrian Church?

CHAP. XI. There is no sign of the Book of Baruch having ever found general acceptance in the Jewish Synagogue. The possibility may be conceded, that Origen is reporting a local practice. But it is more probable that, when he mentions Jeremiah among the Hebrew books, he has in his mind the expanded form in which it appeared in his Greek Bible; and, as we shall see in the next chapter, this explanation is confirmed by the order in which he enumerates the books. The subject of the order of the books in the Hebrew Canon belongs to a distinct enquiry; but, as it is not without interest for our subject, we shall touch upon it briefly in the following chapter.

'Apocrypha' belong to

.

The history of the admission of the books of the history of 'Apocrypha' into the Greek and Latin copies of the Old LXX, not of Testament lies outside the scope of the present work. Scriptures. The Christian Church of the Apostolic age accepted the

Hebrew

Palestinian Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures in its entirety. The Palestinian Canon is that whose growth and formation we have endeavoured to trace. It is that which our Lord and the Apostles, by their usage, sealed for the blessing and divine instruction of all ages to come. It is that of whose compass and integrity we have assurance from the unalterable character of Hebrew tradition, as well as from the combined testimony of Melito, of Origen, of Athanasius, of Jerome, and of others, who contended for the purity of the Hebrew Scriptures as the only true Canon of the Old Covenant.

The intermixture of the so-called Apocryphal books, and their quasi-recognition in the Christian Church, constitute the theme of a separate study1. The Apocryphal Books never had a place (see Chap. x.) in the Palestinian Canon. The position which they obtained among

1 See Westcott's Bible in the Church.

Christians after the 2nd century, was due to the prevalent CHAP. XI. ignorance of Hebrew, and, as a consequence, to the ignorance of the true limits of that Jewish Bible, which the Apostles had sanctioned. Defective acquaintance with the Hebrew tradition and with the Palestinian

Canon is answerable, in the main, for the additions which were made in the Greek Bible and in the versions derived from it. When once additional books were accepted in the list of the LXX, the enormous influence of that Version caused them to be regarded with a veneration, which only the more learned men in the Church. could keep distinct from that which was due to the inspired and holy writings of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture, and to them alone, as the Bible of the Jewish Church on which our Saviour set the seal of His authority.

Р

CHAP. XII.

The Tripartite

CHAPTER XII.

THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE BOOKS.

HITHERTO I have designedly abstained from touching upon the subject of the arrangement of the books, except so far as 'the tripartite division' of the Canon, and the position of the books, Ruth and Lamentations, have necessarily claimed attention in connexion with the historical argument.

If that historical argument has been as fully supported by evidence, as I think it has, it will long ago have become plain to the reader, that 'the tripartite division' gives no arbitrary grouping, but is a trustworthy witness and an invaluable memorial of the historical growth and gradual development of the Canon.

The arrangement of the Nebiim and Kethubim is not Division: chronological, nor is it according to subject-matter. If they had been grouped upon either the one principle or the other, we should not have found Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Esther placed in a separate group from Judges, Samuel, and Kings, nor the Books of Lamentations and Daniel separated from those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Jewish explanations

The usual explanations which have been given, have inadequate. gone, as a rule, very wide of the mark. They have partaken rather of the nature of comment, drawn from the fact of the triple division, than of explanation based upon actual evidence. Thus, the Jewish tradition that the three