And it should also be remarked that the scat- tered pieces of evidence, though serving as con- venient landmarks, must not be regarded as necessarily marking distinct epochs in the history of the Canon.
(a) Preparato Stages culminating in the Canonization of the Hexateuch Ezra and Nehemiah.—Even before the authorization of the Hexateuch, the idea of a Canon was not entirely new. In the first place, the earlier strata of the Hexateuch, JE and D, were probably well known, and received with various Lees of reverence. This was true also of some other parts of the Bible, several of the psalms, most of the historical books and of the prophets. But more important than this, the various codes of the Law had been from time to time formally enforced. The Deca- logue had, according to E, been sanctioned directly by God Himself (Ex 20"). At any rate, nothing could exceed the awful reverence with which the Ark and its contents were regarded. The ancient codes preserved by JE, Ex 20-23 and 34!*%, had certainly been sanctioned at a very early date. The former had, according to E, been inaugurated by a solemn act of sacrifice, Ex 24°*,—a passage of great importance as showing how what was originally, as clearly seen from its contents, a sort of common law, came to be sanctioned and enforced by religious authority.* It is well known how, at obviously a much later date, the provisions of D were enforced by the authority of Josiah (2 Καὶ 23). What was really new in the promulga- tion of the Hexateuch in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was that now we find, as it would ap- pear, not merely a law, but a sacred boa authoritatively put forward for the acceptance of the et
(6) The Prophetico-Historical Canon.—It is obvi- ous that the canonization of Scripture is not likely to have stopped with the Hexateuch. The in- creased or fresh awakened interest in their ancient history must have supplied the Jews with a fresh impulse to historical study. The feelings with which the earlier history was regarded would have insensibly extended to the later history, written in the same spirit and already bearing the impress of a bygone age. In these writings, as well as in those containing the teachings of the Prophets, men realized that they heard the in- spired voice of the true successors of Moses, the first of prophets (Dt 18'*"), It is easy to see that it would not have been long before the second group of writings came to be regarded with much
* It is quite im ible to fix with certainty the date of the ceremonies descri in this passage, but the laws themselves reflect the state of society as we find it in 1 Samuel, which
robably continued long after in the north. The code itself is lowaven, very complex.
612 OLD TESTAMENT CANON
—_
the same reverence as the first. This feeling was certainly heightened by the cessation of the power of wens is Ever since the Captivity the pro- phetical office had been becoming more and more priestly in its character, as we see from the Bks. of Heat Zechariah, and especially Malachi, and was finally absorbed in the priest- hood. It is to be noticed that the writer of Sirach speaks of Aaron as vested with authority to teach (Sir 457), and that according to the Chronicler it was the Levites especially who taught the people in the time of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17**). But we have to mark not only the growth of a certain feeling towards Holy Scripture, but also a literary
rocess, which is likely to have taken some time.
his consisted of the collection of scattered books and leaflets, and the revision of books, and cer- tainly began long before the time of Ezra. The editorial frame-work of the Bk. of Kings is the work of the Deuteronomic school, and probably belongs to the time of the Exile. But, on the other hand, there are marks of a later revision, and in certain passages, such as 1 K 8.11, we are re- minded of P, if not of the Chronicler. The last five chapters of Judges in their present form have close affinities with δ, The collections of prophecies of different prophets and different dates under the names of ΩΝ and Zechariah, whatever their original cause, would not have found acceptance while the memories of Deutero-Isaiah and Zechariah were still fresh. We may say then that the literary process was probably completed not many years after the time of Ezra, say about B.c. 400, and that this second group had canonical acceptance, at latest, before the time when Sirach was written, and certainly long before that work was translated. It we put the canonicity about B.c. 300-250, we shall probably be not far wrong, provided that we remember that there is no proof of official recogni- tion by authority at such an early date. It should be borne in mind that the Chronicler (c. 300) treated the history in a way difficult to explain, had he been possessed with our ideas of canonicity. On the other hand, the separation of Joshua from the Law, and its combination with the other historical books of the second group, suggests that at the time when made—long before B.c. 130 (Prologue to Sirach)—there was no very marked difference of estimation between the first and second groups. But we must not, again, make the assumption that all books of this second group were necessarily regarded with the same degree of reverence and authority.