BIBLE
BIBLE
289
the literature recognised as s<icred when Ezra read the Torah in the hearing of the whole peojjle (Neh 8). To this would ere long be added such records of Israel's history and such portions of the writings of Israel's prophets as survived, forming the second of the great divisions. Then, finally, the miscellaneous collection known as the Hagio- grapha would be foruied for the preservation of those works which were deemed worthy of being placed beside the Law and the Prophets. As to the occasions of these steps being taken, and in connexion with the whole subject, there are traditions, some of which were accepted in Christian times, but which are in general to be regarded with suspicion, even where they cannot be sliown to be absolutely untrustworthy. Thus the second stage mentioned above is in 2 Mac 2" ascribed to Ncheniiah, who is said to have ' founded a library ' and ' gathered together the acts of the Kings and the I'rophets, and the writings of I)a\ad and the epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts.' ■The succeeding verse, 2", mentions an efibrt of Judas Maccabseus to recover the documents which bad ' fallen out ' during the great war of independ- ence, and it may have been on this occasion that the bulk of the Hagiographa was brought together. A more famous tradition ia that of the Great Synagogue, which, beginning its work under the presidency of Ezra, still existed in the time of Simon the Just. "To this body the formation of at least the first two diWsions of the Canon was ascribed. These two had at any rate obtained general recognition, while the third was at least in course of construction when, probably in the beginning of the 2nd cent. B.C., the Prologue to Exiclesiasticus speaks of ' the Law itself, the Prc-
Jhets and the rest of the Books.' The reference in osephus to the 22 Books is in terms which indicate that the Canon had already been for some time completed, and his Canon was evidently identical with ours. Though it is true that certain books, as Ec and Ca, w^re still dis^juted by the Jews them- selves as late as a.d. 90, it may be held that, so far as historical indication goes, the OT Canon wax practically conijileted a century before Christ. It was certainly the uniform tradition of the Jews that prophetic inspiration had ce.ased with Malaclii, and it is worthy of remark that the very myths with which they ultimately surrounded the forma- tion and close of the Canon could have arisen only in the course of a considerable period of time.
Before glancing at the way in which this problem has in modem times been attacked from another siile, it may be well to refer to the so-called Alex- andrian Canon and OT Apocrypha. The LXX (see below) was made up partly of translations from the Hebrew, partly of productions in the Greek language of later Jewish literature. The con- clusion that there was a recognised Alex. Canon distinct from that of Pal. ha-s found much favour with Rom. Cath. critics, as it seemed to give autho- rity to the Apocrypha. These iKxiks were exten- ■ively used by the Church Fathers, and Jerome himself incluae<l Judith among the Hagiographa. But it is more probable that there was no intention to erect a separate standard of Canonicity, and that the additional books were admitted partly owing to the Canon of Palestine not having yet been definitely or authoritatively fixed, partly owing to a certain breadth of firactieal view. It is to be noted that the grandfather of .lesusSirach indicates no knowledge of any other than the Heh. Canon, and that Pliilo, though he took a wide view of ina|iiration, is said, like NT itself, never to cite the apocrvplial books. The books so named vary greatly l)oth as to their contents anil value. 1 and 2 Mac are hi.stories — the former hi>;hly, the latler much less, trustworthy ; others (1 Es, To, Jth, 3 and
VOL. 1. IQ
4 Mac) are rather historical romances. Some (Wis, Sir) are collections of wise sayings or philosophical treatises ; others are intended to su])plement the canonical books, or to illustrate the acts and words of persons mentioned in the latter. It was by popular suffrage rather than formal acceptance that these books obtained their places in the Greek B., which, it must be remembered, was the B. of the apostolic age, and so formed part of the heritage of the Christian Church.
The problem of modem criticism has been, not so mucn the formation and completion of the Canon as an authoritative collection, regarding which it has been able to add little to the meagre historical indications already noticed, as the rise of OT as a literature and its relation to the religious life and thoufjht of Israel. Certain features of the sacred narratives — such as, double accounts of the same event, ditlerences of expression and phrase- ology, difl'erences even of tone and modes of think- ing, and, in the Pent., references to events long after the time of Moses — had been early noticed, and could scarcely fail to suggest that they had been compiled from still earlier documents, or had had notes and explanations inserted by later hands than those of the original authors or compilers. The serious analysis, esp. of the Pentateuchal writings, began when, in 1753, Astruc, a French physician, pointed out that the more remarkable of these lines of cleavage coincided with the re- spective use of Elohim or J" as names of God. Astruc himself set the example, which was only too readily followed by succeeding critics, of ex- cessive detail in his analysis, since he parcelled out the Book of Genesis among no fewer than twelve different writers. The phenomena, however, to which he called attention, being beyond dispute, obviously needed explanation, and, when they were found pervading other books, and esp. the Book of Joshua, seemed to prove, not only that these writings w-ere of composite character, but that they belonged to a later date than had previously been a.ssigned to them. His successors assumed at first that the Elohist, whose narrative begins with Gn 1', was the earlier ; and his writing; was known as the basis or Grundsvhrift, the sections marked by the use of the name J" bein" held to have been inserted into this fundamental document lus supplementary to it. A more careful investigation unilertaken by Hupfeld, and published in 1853, showed not only that the .lahwi.stic portions belonged to a docu- ment which, originally independent, had been interwoven with the other, but that there were at least two Eloliists whose respective work could be distinguished, while one of them stood in the closest relation with the Jahwist. Taking these two together, it may be stated as a fact now generally accepted, that there are three great divisions dis- cernible in the Pentateuch, or elements rather of which it consists — (1) The work of the Deutero- nomist belimging mainly to the fifth book ; (2) that of an Elohistic writer, — to which the name of Priestlv Code, Pricslercodcx, is commonly given, beginning, as already mentioned, with Gn 1' ; (3) the combined narrative of the Jahwist and a second Elohist. It is true that analysis, fol- lowing the lines of Astnic, has often gone much further, and that OT criticism has been brought into disrepute in many quarters and laid itself open to counter-criticism, not only by this excess, but by the great divergence of view among the earlier critics, and the confidence, and even ar- rogance, with which they i)ronounced upon the smallest detail. But while the disagreements of critics show that their work is yet far from com- plete, and that there are probably many points as to wliich certainty is ni> longer attainable, the main results of their work "annot be ignored, and