In 2 Es ninety-four divinely-revealed books are mentioned (14), of which seventy are esoteric (14 This leaves twenty- four representing the present OT according toa usual Jewish method of reckoning: the law, five; the prophets, eight; the Hagiographa, eleven. All double books, Ezr and Neh, and the minor prophets, are reckoned as one each. This standard way of reckoning the OT books gave rise to the name The Twenty- four (see article Bistz). Josephus (6. Apion. i. 8) mentions
* Dn is probably the latest of the iographa. Some, how- ever, place Est and Ec later (see articles), and also certain see art. Psaums, and cf. Duhm, ‘Die Psalmen,’ in
urzer Hdcomm., z. AT, Ὁ. xxiff.,and Cheyne, OP, 24'f., 50, etc.).
twenty-two: five belonging to Moses, thirteen covertag the interval from Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, and four con- taining hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. is number is obtained by are Ru with Jg, and La with Jer, a method of reckoning also adopted by the Jews. Jerome mentions it (Prologus Galeatus, uoted in Wildeboer’s Origin of the Canon of the OT, p. 80f.
been questioned whether Josephus did not omit from his Canon the Bks. of Ca and Ec (Briggs’ Introd. to the Study of Holy Scripture, vi. 4, 1899, p. 127 f.). The canonicity of these two books was under discussion at the Assemblies of Jamnia (OT JaBNaH, 8 Jewish seat of learning after the fall of Jerusalem) about a.p. 90 and A.D. 118, and a decision was rendered in their favour, and this period is frequently given as marking the final close of the oT Ganon. This discussion concerning Ca and Ec was probably in regard to their having been rightly received into the Canon, and not their first reception (Buhl, Canon and Text of the OT, 88; Ryle, Canon of the OT, p. 187). It is a noteworthy fact, however, that these two books are nowhere quoted or ly referred to in the NT.
The impulse which led to the special setting apart of the writings as Scripture was probably the enhancing of sacred writings through the com- mand of Antiochus Epiphanes for their destruction (1 Mac 1°), and the revival of Jewish patriotism in the Maccabeean period.*
ii. THE OT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH.—1. Pre- servation and Transmission.—(a) Pre-Massoretic period. The OT Scriptures were onmuat written upon rolls (cf. Ps 405), Jer 36% Ezk 2°, Zec 5) of eins or possibly in some instances of papyrus paper, and were thus handed down with probably much the same general care or lack of care with which they were preserved before canonization ; for the varia- tions of the Sam. and Greek Pentateuchs from the later uniform Heb. consonantal text show that the words and letters of the Scriptures were not at first regarded as especially sacred. Later, however, this idea was developed, and by the Ist cent. A.D. had so far progressed that Philo said that the Jews had never altered a word of what Moses wrote (quoted in Eusebius, Prep. ad Ev. viii. 6 fin.), and J Car! et that no one had been so bold as to add anything to them [the Scriptures], to take any- thing from them, or to make any change in them (c. Apion. i. 8); and in the Talmud, in the words of a Rabbi held to have lived in the Ist cent., the work of a copyist is called Divine, and a warning is given against dropping or adding a letter (Erubin 13a, Sota [cf. Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. i. p. 128]). Synchronous with this growth of reverence for the letter was necessarily an en- deavour to have a uniform text for use in the synagogues and schools. Efforts in this direction culminated not long after the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), when in the refounding of Judaism a single consonantal text of the OT under the influ- ence of Rabbi Akiba and his associates at Jamnia was adopted as authoritative, and all others dis- appeared. The principle of its adoption is un- known. A tradition relates that the text of the Law witnessed by the largest number of MSS was chosen (Jerus. Taanith, iv. 2). Probably the choice was de- termined by the traditional age or genealogy of a certain MS or school of MSS believed to represent best the original archetype. This finally adopted text cannot be regarded as entirely free from cor- ruptions (slight in the Law but conspicuous, for example, in land 2Sand Ezk). These corruptions arose from the inevitable mistakes of copyists, especially before the words and letters were severely reverenced ; from the gradual change of the old Hebrew alphabet to the present square character —a change brought about between the period of Ezra and the Ist cent. B.c., and also from emenda- tions made on dogmatic grounds.
* Budde holds that into the third Canon, that of the Hagio- grapha, were received all books of a religious character, of which the date was believed to go back as far as the prophetic period, that is, to the time of (art. ‘OT Canon,’ Encycl. Bid.). Josephus and Talmudic Judaism did believe that all the books received were of such an early date, but possibly the canonicity gave the date.
OLD TESTAMENT
The substitution of bosheth (nw2) for δα’ αἱ (Sy3) in proper names (see article IsuposueTH), and of bless (773) for curse (S$p) in 1K 2110-13, illustrate these dogmatic changes (few in number) introduced to express an abhorrence of olay or to avoid impious expressions toward God. (Cf. Geiger’s Urschrift der Bibel, p. 257 ff.; Ginsburg, op. cit. p. 868 ff.; Siegfried (SBOT), Budde (Hdkomm.), Duhm (Kurzer Hi m.), contra, on Job 19). In line with these changes introduced into the text are probably the nekudim (O'Np)) or fifteen extraordinary points indicating Lard ane change should be made in the text (Ginsburg, op. cit. p. HY