The foregoing tradition occurs in one of the oldest books of the Talmud, the PWhe Aboth; and it is re- peated, with greater minuteness, in the Babylonian Gemara (Baba Balhra, fol. 18, 2. See the passages in Buxtorf *s Tiberias, lib. i, c 10 ; comp. Wachner, Antiq, Heb, i, 18). The substance of it is that, after Moses and the elders, the sacred books were watched over by . the prophets, and that the Canon was completed by Ezra, Nehemiah, and the men of the Great Synagogue. The earliest form in which this appears is in the fourth book of Esdras, a work dating firom the end of the first
CANON
16
CANON
or beghming of the second centniy after Christ. Here it is asserted that 'Ezra, by divine command and by di- vine aid, caused to be composed 94 books by three men (Vnlg. 204 books by five men) in forty days, 70 of which, wherein **is a vein of understanding, a foun- tain of wisdom, and a stream of knowledge," were to be given to the wise of the people, whUe the rest were to be made public, that '^both the worthy and the un- worthy might read them" (ziv, 42-47). These twen- ty-four thus made public are doubtless the canonical books. The statement is very vague; but that this is its reference is rendered probable by the appearance in the writings of some of the Christian fathers of a tradition that the sacred writings, which had been lost during the exile, WMp restored by Ezra in the time of Artaxerxes by in^iration (Clemens Alex., Strom. I, 22, p. 410; Potter; Tertullian, De cuUufaem, i, 8; Irenaus, adv, Hatr. iii, 21 [26], etc.). Against this tradition it has been objected that it proves too much, for it says that the men of the Great Synaxo}^e wrote the later books, such as the twelve minor prophets, etc. But that by writmg is here meant, not the original com- posing of these books, but the (ucription (the to-writing) of them to the sacred Canon, may be inferred, partly from the circumstance that, in the same tradition, the men of Hezekiah are said to have written the Proverbs, which can only mean that they copied them (see Prov. XXV, 1) for the purpose of inserting them in the Can- on, and partly from the fact that the word here used (pna) is used by the Targumist on Prov. xxv, 1 as equivalent to the Heb. pn9, to troMcnbe. An at- tempt has also been made to discredit this tradition by adducing the circumstance that Simon the Just, who lived long after Ezra, is said, in the Pvrhe Aboth, to have been one of the members of the Great Syna- gogue ; but to this much weight cannot be allowed, partly because Simon is, in the passage refiarred to, said to have been one of the remnaatt of the Great Sjrnagogue, which indicates his having outlived it, and principally because the same body of tradition which states this opmion makes him the succettor of Ezra; so that either the whole is a mistake, or the Si- mon referred to must have been a different person frtmi the Simon who is commonly known by the title of ''Just" (comp. Othonls Lex, Bobbin, PhUol. p. 604, Gen. 1675 ; H&vemick's Einleitung in dcuA.T. Th. i. Abt. I, i, 48). Or we may adopt the opinion of Hart- mann (Die Enge Verbindung de* AU, Teat, mit d, Neuen,' p. 127) that the college of men learned in the law, which gathered round Ezra and Nehemiah, and which properly was the Synagogue, continued to receive ac- cessions for many years after their death, by means of which it existed till the time of the Maccabees, without our being required to suppose that what is af- firmed concerning its doings in the time of Ezra is meant to refer to it during the entire period of its ex- istence. Suspicions have also been cast upon this tra- dition from the multitude of extravagant wonden nar- rated by the Jews respecting the Great Synagogue. But such are found in almost every traditionary record attachmg to persons or bodies which possess a nation- ally heroic character; and it is surely unreasonable, because a chronicler tells one or two tilings which are incredible, that we should disbelieve all besides that he records, however possible or even probable it may be. To this it may be added that there are some things, such as the order of daily prayer, the settling of the text of the Old Testament, the establishment of the traditional interpretation of Scripture, etc., which must be assigned to the period immediately after the Captivity, and which presuppose the existence of some institute such as the Great Synagogue, whether this be regarded as formally constituted by Ezra or as a voluntary association of priests and scribes (Zunz, GoUe$dimttlichen Vortrdge der Juden, p. 88). Moreover there are some passages of Scripture (e. g. 1 Chron.
iii, 28, 24) which belong to a period somewhat later than any of the canonicid writers. See Ezra.
This tradition, again, is confirmed by the follow- ing cireumstanoes : (a.) The time in question was the latest at which this could be done. As the doty to be performed was not merely that of determin- ing the genuineness of certain books, but of point- ing out tiiose which had been divinely ordained as a rule of faith and morals to the Church, it was one which none but a prophet could discharge. Now in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra there were several prophets living, among whom we know the names of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; but with that age expired the line of prophets which God had appointed " to comfort Jacob, and deliver them by assured hope** (Ecclus. xlix, 10). On this point the evidence of Jo- sephus, the apocryphal boolcs, and Jewish tradition, is humonious (comp. Joseph, oont, Apion. i, 8 ; 1 Mace iv, 46; ix, 27; xiv, 41; Jerome, ad Jes, xlix, 21; Vitringa, Ob*, Sac, lib. vi, cap. 6, 7 ; Hftvemick, Ein- UU. i, 1, 27 ; Rengstenherg, BeUr&ge tur Einleit, m* A. 7*. i, 245). As the men of the Great Synagogue were thus the last of the prophets, if the Canon was not fixed by them, the time was passed when it could be fixed at alL (b,) That it was fixed at that time ap- pears fttmi the fact that all 9ub9equeni references to the sacred writings presuppose the existence of the com- plete Canon, as well as fh>m the fetct that of no ono among the apocryphal books is it so much as hinted, either by the author or by any other Jewish writer, that it was worthy of a place among the sacred books, though of some of them the pretensions are in other respects sufiidentiy high (e. g. Ecclus. xxxiii, 16-18 ; I, 2^). Josephus, indeed, distinctiy affirms (cont. Ap. 1. c.) that, during the long period tiiat had elapsed be- tween the time of the close of the Canon and his day, no one had dared either to add to, or to take from, or to alter any thing in the sacred books. This plainly shows that about the time of Artaxerxes, to which Jo- sephus refers, and which was the age of Ezra and Ne- hemiah, the collection of the sacred books was com- pleted by an authority which thenceforward ceased to exist. See Stnaoooub, Great.