But there are two other questions which it may be well to answer first. How comes Josephus to speak of 22 books instead of 24% and what are the books which he means? Three explanations ol the number 22 have been oe (1) That of Griitz, that Josephus did not include Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, the two books which, according te the account preserved in Jadaim, were the chief subject of dispute at the Council of Jamnia. Griitz maintains that both these books were accepted by the school of Hillel, and rejected by that of Shammai, and that the main object of tlie council was to reconcile the two schools, so that the ques- tion of the Canon was really a secondary con- sideration. But, had this been the case, Josephus as a Pharisee would almost certainly have followed the school of Hillel and accepted these books. In any case it is not easy to understand why he should so unhesitatingly have rejected books which were soon afterwards, if indeed it was afterwards, accepted by the majority. (2) A more common hypothesis is that Josephus included Ruth in the Bk. of Judges, and Lamentations in that of Jere- miah, with the express intention of making the number of the books agree for symbolical reasons with that of the Hebrew alphabet. The sym- bolical treatment of the number is in fact common
| 608 OLD TESTAMENT CANON
|
enough, but Josephus himself makes no such use of it, and it seems, as far as we know, to be con- fined to Christian writers. Conspicuous instances are found in Origen (in Euseb. HZ vi. 25) and Jerome (Praf. Sam. et Mal.). The latter, curi- ously enough, finds alternative symbolisms for the more ordinary number 24, and even for 27, the latter number being got by dividing the 5 double books — Samuel, Kings, Chraviaian Ezra- Nehe- miah, Jeremiah-Lamentations—and comparing the whole with the numbers of the alphabet plus the 5 final consonants. In this arrangement it is to be noticed, as Ryle very justly points out (Canon, p. 220), that Jerome conveniently ignores the fact that Judges-Ruth was also a double book, and follows the Greek arrangement in dividing the first three books. Their division in the Hebrew Bible is of much later date. It is clear, therefore, that this, at any rate, was no traditional Jewish ex- jlanation, but merely the play of Jerome’s own faite (3) A third explanation is that Josephus in inclading Ruth in Judges and Lamentations in Jeremiah was so far following the arrangement of the books in the LXX, as we know it. In any case his arrangement of books appears to be peculiar, and is based entirely upon the ray ka matter. Apart from any question arising trom the inclusion or exclusion ae Reecloeiiiatae and Song of Songs, it is evident that Daniel must be in- cluded among the prophetico-historical books, an arrangement quite at variance with Hebrew cus- tom. The descriptions, too, are somewhat vague. Even if Song of Songs is not to be included among ‘hymns to God and counsels of life for men,’ it is clear that the Bk. of Isaiah must be intended as among the prophets who wrote the history of their own times. What makes it impossible to decide this question absolutely is that we really do not know with any certainty what was tne arrange- ment of the LXX at this date, nor do we even know whether the books were united as yet in one complete collection. It is at least as probable that it existed in the form of separate collections. Again there is some reason to suppose that the LXX did not stand alone in the combination of Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jere- miah. In this connexion hardly sufficient weight seems to have been generally given to the express statements of Origen. In his enumeration of Scripture, he describes Judges as Kpiral, Pov, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνί, Σαφατείμ, and Jeremiah as ‘Iepeutas σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί, Ἱερεμία (in Euseb. vi. 25). This may possibly mean that in his Hebrew copy of the Bible the name ‘Judges’ included Ruth, and the name ‘Jeremiah’ both Lamentations and the Epistle (Bar 6).* Such a rearrangement of the Hebrew books is of importance as showing that in the view of Josephus, and those who followed the same arrangement, the Hagiographa were quite as definitely Scripture as the rest.
When we compare the strong statements made by Josephus as to a Canon long and unalterably fixed with the doubts concerning certain books prevalent during the Ist and 2nd cents. A.D., it seems that we have before us utterly irreconcilable evidence, and that we have no choice but to accept one alternative and reject theother. And this is what writers upon the Canon seem very frequently to have done. But studying the question quite impartially, it is difficult to see what ground there should be for absolute falsification on either side. In fact the evidence of the Council of Jamnia, as far as it
* The inclusion of this Epistle is certainly a difficulty; but in the face of the definite reference throughout to the Hebrew titles of the several books, it seems hardly satisfactory to say, with Ryle (p. 107), that Origen is merely following the LXX version. It appears more probable that at this date some Hebrew MSS did actually contain this Epistle, which was re-