We have, then, to take account of what may be called a larger and a smaller Canon. The larger included most of those books which were comprised in the Greek LXX and afterwards the Latin Vul- gate, and became the Bible of the Medizval Church; the latter was confined to the Books of the Hebrew Bible, and was equivalent to our Old Testament. It is with the latter that we have directly most to do.
iv. JEWISH ORIGIN OF OT CANON.—The earl Christians derived their OT from the pee Church. By this is not meant that when the first Christians broke off from Judaism they took with them a well-defined Bible, but that questions of canonicity were referred, as a matter of course, to Jewish opinion. So little idea had the early Christian Church of deciding for itself what books were or were not canonical, that we actually find a bishop (Melito of Sardis, c. 170 A.D.) Sannin to specify the contents of the OT until he had travelled to the country where the sacred books had originated, and there made special inquiries (see Euseb. HE iv. 26). Even so his list is not absolutely complete, as it omits Esther. Whether this is merely a slip on his own or his informer’s part, or is intentional, it is difficult to say. It is not, of course, to be supposed that Melito was un- acquainted with the OT books which he enumerates. They were all to be found in the LXX, and Melito gives them their familiar Greek names as found in that version. The important fact is, that among the Bible books, in this wider sense of the Bible, he considered those to be of special value, or as we should say canonical, which he ascertained to be received among the Jews. That the early Chris- tian Church fully recognized that their OT Canon was thus derived, is shown even more explicitly by the language of Origen nearly a century later, c. 250, in which he speaks of ‘the Books of the Covenant, as the Hebrews have handed them down’ (ras ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους ὡς ᾿Εβραῖοι παραδιδό- ασιν); and after giving the Canon, only accidentally incomplete,* speaks of ‘the Maccabees’ as outside
* The omission of the Minor Prophets is inconceivable on any other hypothesis, and is, in fact, required to make up the given number of 22
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
606
of them (ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέ- yparra: Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ, Euseb. HE vi. 25). That *the Maccabees’ are, like the other books, given their Hebrew title, meaning probably ‘ Prince of the House of the Sons of God,’* is important as showing that the first book at least was still extant in Hebrew, and that Origen did not accept as canonical all sacred books in that language. The word ἐνδιαθήκους suggests that διαθήκη, ‘ cove- nant’ (our ‘Testament’), was already beginning to be applied technically to the OT collection. This testimony is all the more remarkable be- cause Origen not only made use of the ‘external books’ himself, but defended the Greek additions to Daniel against Julius Africanus, Similarly Jerome speaks of the books recognized among the Hebrews (apud Hebreos) and of those outside as having their proper place among the Apocrypha: ‘Ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est, inter ἀπόκρυφα esse Safest (Prafat. in libr. Sam. et Mal., quoted by Ryle, Canon, Exc. D. xiii. etc.).
y. Divisions OF HEBREW BIBLE—THEIR SIGNI- FICANCE.—The art therefore resolves itself into that concerning the reception of the sacred books by the Jewish Church. When and how were certain of the sacred books a the Jews received as canonical and the rest excluded? One fact is of great importance if we would understand aright the history of the Canon, that we have to deal not with one, but with three groups of books. These are not the result of a later subdivision of the larger ‘Divine Library’ for convenience’ sake into three smaller parts, but, with the probable = of one book (Joshua), they were with the Jews always distinct, and were regarded with some difference of feeling. In Talmudic Literature they are compared respectively, in point of sanctity, with the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the Temple Court. The three divisions are—(1) The Law (πῦρ Torah), comprising the Pentateuch or so called ‘Five Books of Miceea” (2) The Pro- ie (o°x°3}), comprising both the historical books,
oshua, Judges, | and 2Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings —called ‘the Former Prophets’; and the pro- phetical books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the book of the twelve Minor Prophets—called ‘the Latter Prophets.+ (3) The Writings (o°31n3 Kéthibhim = Gr. ἁγιόγραφα, Hagiographa = Holy Writings), by which is probably meant the rest of the Scriptures, those which ap not come under either of the other heads. The Historical books were included under the Prophets, probably not under the belief that they were necessarily all written by well-known prophets, Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, ete., but as written under prophetic in- spiration. In this article the groups will be called the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagio- grapha. It will be obvious at once that they are not the result of a division according to subject- matter. The Prophetico-historical books do not include Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The prophet Daniel (so expressly called in NT, Mt 2418) is placed not in the second, but in the third group. This last contains, in fact, books of the most heterogeneous sorts, poetry, ethics, philo- sophy, prophecy, etc., and its name is of the most general character. It would, strictly speaking, apply to all the groups, and its application to this exclusively can be explained only by the history of its inclusion in the Canon.