Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.—The Bks. of l and 2 Chronicles, with Ezra and Nehemiah, the four originally one book, were probably received as a trustworthy record before the beginning of the 2nd cent. B.c. As already shown, at least Chronicles and Nehemiah are referred to in the praise of famous men in Sir 44-50. Probably they were not written much more than a century earlier, about B.C. 330 (see Kent, Hist. Heb, People, ii. 8), and their character suggests that they were com-
eee τ ὐνασδυυσυν τ EEE τ τὰν του τ .----ς-- - -- - "--
614 OLD TESTAMENT CANON
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
i
piled by authority. If so, the dates of authorship and canonicity are the same. In any case their composition and reception belong to a time not long after the kg revision of the Bk. of Kings, though possibly a much longer time after the general recognition of an earlier edition, so to speak, of that book. The two books present an instructive contrast. The Chronicles are, unlike Kings, not so much a compilation as a composition. It is only exceptionally that fragments of ancient documents appear in their original shape. For the most part the whole has been recast in its relatively modern form, with its characteristically modern spirit. It shows the marks of a definitely literary effort in a literary age. Its treatment of ancient history may be compared in some respects with that of the later Targumsand Midrashim. In fact, the word midrash aisealy occurs in 2 Ch 135 247 (AV ‘story’), though hardly in its later technical sense. The book was probably intended to pre- serve in a permanent form the methods of teaching common in the Jewish schools. That such a literary school should icra into existence after the period of Ezra and Nehemiah is highly prob- able. It would have been the natural result of the impulse given by them to the study of Scripture.
ob.—Of Job it is difficult to speak very posi- tively. The allusion in Ezk 14%:*% may prove nothing more than that the story of Job, or some- thing like it, was current in the prophet’s day. The mention after Daniel (in this case certainly it is the person, not the book, we have to think of) may suggest that the story had only recently become known. In any case the point of the allusion does not make it necessary to suppose that Ezekiel necessarily regarded Job as a fnterigal person. The book bears traces of the kind of religious feelings which were quickened by Deutero- nomy, and betrays a still closer relationship to Deutero-Isaiah. Indeed the suffering Servant of J” forms a striking parallel to the leading thought of the book. Yet the relation between the two appears to be collateral rather than of direct ancestry. This resemblance, taken with the allu- sions to astronomy in Job 9° 26%, suggest that Job was written in Babylon about the same period. This would be all but a certainty if we could be sure that Job’s sufferings are meant to be an allegory of those of the exiled Israel.
Ruth and Lamentations.—The Bks. of Ruth and Lamentations, especially if the latter was believed to be the work of Jeremiah, could hardly have received general recognition when the historico- prophetic group was completed, as they would certainly have found a place in it, the former as a historical, the latter as a prophetic work. Apart from a very possible reference in Sir 495 to La 1-4 ete., we have no evidence to show whether they were known or not to the writer of Sirach, and the internal evidence is too uncertain in this case to give us any real help. All that we can positively say is that both were thoroughly recognized by the end of the Ist cent. A.D., as seen by the testimony of Josephus and the Council of Jenna and no doubt is expressed of their genuineness. They must have been received long before ; but how lon we can only guess. This is, however, just one o those cases in which the evidence of silence is of very little value against a book. The Bk. of Ruth would hardly have suited the purpose of the writer of Sirach, who includes no women among his worthies.
Daniel and Esther.—The Bks. of Daniel and Esther stand on a very different footing. Had they been known, Daniel and Mordecai would certainly have found a place in Sir 44-50 among the ‘ famous men.’ It is true that Ezekiel (14°) knows of Daniel as one whose purity of life might be supposed
to have secured the land from Divine wrath, but not necessarily as the great hero of the Babylonian and Persian courts. How could Sirach have failed to commemorate him who combined all the courage of a David with the wisdom of a Solomon? The book bears obvious internal evidence in chs. 7-9 of a date subsequent to the Maccabean era, From the similarity of subject it seems not unlikely that both Daniel and Esther were derived from the same Eastern source. But it could hardly have been earlier than the beginning of the 150 cent. B.c. The history of the reception of the books forms a rather marked contrast. The Bk. of Daniel, as might have been expected from its contents, appears to have gained favour without opposition, ἐπα Daniel is spoken of in the NT as a prophet (Mt 24%). Esther, on the other hand, was received with considerable hesitation, and whether on this ground or otherwise there is less evidence in its favour. It is not quoted in the NT, which may be only accidental; and it is at least possible that the feast of Jn δ᾽ is that of Purim, which would prove the recognition of the book. Several Rabbis ob- jected to the book about the 1st and 2nd cents. A.D., and one at least in the 3rd (see Buhl, p. 25); several Fathers, Melito (perhaps by error), Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, omit it from their lists; and it was not regarded as canonical by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Some objections or suspicions arose, among the Jews at any rate, from its secular character ; others, in the opinion of some writers, merely from the fact that the fast of 13th Adar, in connexion with Haman’s plot (ch. 9!), conflicted with the feast of the same day commemorating the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor (1 Mac 7"; see Ryle, p. 139).