(g) Philo, c. 40 A.D.—Going back to the earlier part of the Ist cent. we find the evidence of Philo somewhat confusing. He appears to have been influenced by four more or flees conflicting prin- ciples. (1) He recognized, above all, the supreme inspiration of Moses, beside which all other inspira- tion was comparatively insignificant. (2) He was influenced in his allegorical treatment of Scripture by the methods of the Palestinian Halakha, and quoted the canonical books * as if of greater autho- rity than the rest. (3) He acknowledged the in- naar of the LXX translators, and says tha’ the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures should be rever- enced and admired ‘ as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in the facts and in the words’ (Vita Mos. ii. 5-7). (4) He advanced the theory that inspiration had a still wider sphere, and embraced the great Greek philosophers, and it would seem even himself (see Drummond, Philo, vol. i. 15, 16; Buhl, § 6. 12). We might perhaps best represent and reconcile his different theories by supposing concentric circles corresponding to different degrees
* Excepting Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther.
610 OLD TESTAMENT CANON
of inspiration, the innermost containing the Law of Moses, the next the whole Palestinian Canon, the third the LXX books, the fourth including all inspired books in the very widest sense. But it seeins hardly probable that Philo himself ever con- ceived so definite a system. All that his evidence really seems to prove is that on the whole he was inclined to regard the Palestinian Canon with rreater favour than the wider collection of the uXX. In a general way it confirms what we know from other sources, but hardly adds anything definite.
(h) Prologue to Sirach, c. 130 B.c.—It is different when we get back to the evidence provided by the Prologue to the Bk. of Sirach: ‘Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have γγοεσιροα in their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; . . my grandfather, Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our Fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something per- taining to learning and wisdom.’ Further on the translator takes occasion once more to speak of ‘the Law itself and the Prophets, and the rest of the books,’ as being superior in their original Hebrew to the translation of them (LXX). We ather from these statements that at this time the first two groups, the Law and the Prophets, were at least well-known collections of books of recog- nized authority; that there were, besides these, other books which were highly esteemed for their wisdom and moral worth. But no very definite distinction is drawn between the spirit of this third group and the work of his grandfather, except that one is the imitation of the other. Both were actu- ated by παιδεία and σοφία. Such language is clearly inconsistent with the notion of a closed Canon, as we find it in Josephus. The translator lived, it appears, in an age of transition, when the canon- icity of the first two groups was practically estab- lished (whether a aa or a term expressive of canonicity had yet been formulated matters little), and that of the third was still in the making. It was natural to mention the third also in speaking of the sacred literature of the Jews, but not quite in the same spirit. Such language of commendation would have been quite out of place, almost im- pertinent, in speaking of the Law and the Prophets. A writer of his own day, Thomas Ellwood, could speak of Milton as ‘a gentleman of great note for learning throughout the learned world for the accurate pieces he had written on various subjects and occasions.’ Such language would be absurd now.
We may be practically certain from other con- siderations that this third group of books included Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and others, but we cannot use the passage quoted as an independent argument for the canonicity of any single disputed book, such as the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes.
(i) Sirach, c. 180 B.C.; especially chs. 44- 50 (Praise of Famous Men).—Of even greater importance is the praise of famous men in chs. 44-50 of the Bk. of Sirach itself. From these chapters we get a very fair idea of the view of sacred literature taken by a learned Jew of that time. His descriptions are evidently taken from the Law, the Prophets, and the historical books of the Hagiographa (Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe- miah). There are specific references to every one of them. His conception of David is largely derived from the Chronicler, the appointment of singers, the use of psalms in the temple worship, and prob- ably the Psalter itself being ascribed to him. ‘In
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
all his works he praised the Holy One most high with words of glory ; with his whole heart he sang songs, and loved Him that made him. He set singers also before the altar, that by their voices they might make sweet melody, and daily sing praises in their songs’ (47% ", cf. 1 Ch 25 and Ps 149"), A similar acquaintance with Ezra and Nehemiah seems implied by what is said of Zerub- babel, Joshua, and Nehemiah (494-4), What is said of the first of these might possibly, however, have been taken from Hag 113-18 2%, and certainly bears reference to the latter; and the absence of all mention of Ezra is singular. This shows that the author had no knowledge of those legends which connected the Canon so closely with the great founder of later Judaism (2 Es 14; see also Ryle, Exe. D), and probably is to be explained on the supposition that in his eyes Ezra was over- shadowed by Nehemiah. It is not improbable that at this time the Bks. of Ezra and Nehemiah were still parts of Chronicles. The separation of these books would have helped to bring out the per- sonality of Ezra. Some of the other bocks of the Hagiographa seem also recognized. Sir 478, already quoted, implies the existence of a psalin- book ascribed to David; not necessarily the whole Psalter, but including apparently Ps 149 (see v.*), or at least Ps 100 (see v.*), and therefore probably the whole.* A similar passage, 47", speaks of the admiration which Solomon elicited by his ‘songs, and proverbs, and parables, and interpretations [obviously a mistranslation of ms‘p ‘figures’; cf. Pr 18, where πε has the sense of ‘ figure’). This passage might be merely an adaptation of 1 K 433. 88. but it would receive a special point if Pro verbs, Song of Songs, and perhaps even Ecclesiastes, formed part of the writer’s religious library. That Proverbs was well known to him is obvious from many passages in the book, which were evidently written in mnitation of it; cf. Sir 24° with Pr 8”, Sir 1“ with Pr 17 9! ete. ete. In 48% * he makes reference to Is 40-66. ‘He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Zion’ (ef. esp. Is 401-32 615). This shows that in his time these last chapters had long formed part of Isaiah, and implies that a thorough revision of the sacred books had taken place. He would seem to have lived at the end of a literary age, such as was hardly possible in the troublous times of the Maccabees. The absence of any reference in Sir 44-50 to the Bk. of Job is best explained on the supposition either that the latter was regarded as an allegory, or that Job did not belong to the type of those commemorated by Ben Sira, perhaps as not being of the Jewish community. either of these suppositions accounts for Daniel being ignored. ad the writer known the book, he could hardly have failed to include among his famous men one who combined the wisdom of Solomon with the courage of David.