8. The persecution of Antiochus (B.C. 168) was for the Old Testament what the persecution of Diocletian was for the New, the final crisis which stamped the sacred writings with their peculiar character. The king sought out '* the books of the law** (ra fiipKia Tov vSfMVy 1 Mace, i, 56) and burnt them ; and the possession of a '*book of the covenant** (fitfiXiov ita- ^ci|c) was a capital crime (Joseph. Ant, xii, 5, 4). But this proscription of **the law** naturally served only to direct the attention of the people more doeely to these sacred books themselves. After tiie Macca- bean persecution the history of the formation of the Canon is merged in the history of its contents. The Bible appears frt>m that time as a whole, though it was natural that the several parts were not yet placed on an equal footing, nor regarded universally and in ev- ery respect with equal reverence (comp. Zunz, J), Gottetd, Vortr, d. Jud, p. 14, 25, etc.).
But while the combined evidence of tradition and of the general course of Jewish history leads to tibe conclusion that the Canon in its present shape was formed gradually during a lengthened interval, be- ginning with Ezra and extending through a part or even the whole (Neh. xii, 11, 22) of the Persian period (B.C. 458-882), when the cessation of the prophetic gift pointed out the necessity and defined the limits of the collection, it is of the utmost importance to no- tice that the collection was peculiar in character and ciroumscribed in contents. All the evidence which can be obtained tends to show that it is false, both in theory and fact, to describe the O. T. as *'all the rel- ics of the HebrsBo-Chaldaic literature up to a certain epoch'* (De Wette, JSW. § 8), if the phrase is intended to refer to the time when the Canon was completed.
CANON
11
CANON
The epOogae of EcclesSastes (xii, 11 sq.) speaks of an eztensiTe literature, with which the teaching of Wis- dom is contrasted, and " weariness of the flesh" is de- scribed as the reenlt of the study bestowed npon it. it is impossible that these " many writings*' can have perished in the ^terval between the composition of Ecdesiastes and the Greek invasion, and the Apocry- pha inclndes several Augments which must be referred to the Persian period (Buxtorf, Tiberias, c. 10 sq. ; Hot- tinger, Tke$. PhiL ; Hengstenberg, BeUrdgt, i ; Hftver- nick, EkiL i ; Oehler, art Kanon d. X. T. in Herzog's Ew^dop,\
i. The division of the 0.-T. Canon into three parts, "the Uw," *'the Prophets," and "the Writings" (S'laJina^ tJ'^X^aj ttr^VC), is very ancient; it ap- pears in the prologue to Ecdesi^sticus, in the New Testament, in Philo, in Josephus, and in the Talmud (Surenhuaii Bi/3. KaraXX. p. 49). Respecting the/)r»n- dfik on which the division has been made, there is considerable difference of opinion. All are agreed that the first part, the Law, which embraces the Pen- tateuch, was so named firom its oontainiag the national laws and regulations. The iecond embraces the rest of the historical books, with the exception of Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles ; and the writings of the prophets, except Daniel and Lamenta- tions. It is probable that it received its name a parte poUari, the majority of the books it contains being the production of men who were profestionaUy prophets. That this criterion, however, deUrmmed the omission or inserrion of a book in this second division, as as- serted by Hengstenberg {AuthefU. dee Daniel, p. 27), tnd by H&vemkk (Einl, I, sec 11), cannot be admit- ted; for, on the one habd, we find inserted in this di- rision the book of Amos, who was '* neither a prophet nor a prophet's son ;" and on the other, there b omit- ted from it the Book of Lamentations, which was un- questionably the production of a prophet. The inser- tion of this book in the last rather than in the second division has its source probably in some liturgical reason, in <nrder that it might stand beside the Psalms and other lyric poetry of the sacred books. It is more difficult to account for the insertion of the book of Daniel in the third rather than in the second division ; and much stress has been laid on this circumstance, ss affioarding evidence unfavorable to the canonical claims of this book. But it is not certain that this book always occupied its present position. Is it not possible that for some reason of a mystical or contro- versial kind, to both of which sources of influence the Jeirs during the early ages of Christianit}' were much exposed, tiiey may have altered the position of Daniel from the second to the third division ? What renders this probable is, that the Talmudists stand alone in tins airangement. Josephus, Siracides, Philo, the Kew Testament, all refer to the Hagiographa in such a way as to induce the belief that it comprised only ^poetical portions of the Old Testament— the psalms, hymns, and songs ; while in all the catalogues of the Old-Testament writers given by the early flithers, up to the time of Jerome, Daniel is ranked among the prophets, generally in the position he occupies in our common version. In the version of the Sept., also, he is ranked with the prophets next to Ezekiel. Nor does Jerome agree with the Talmud in all respects, nor does one class of Jewish rabbis agree with an- other in the arrangement of the sacred books. All this shows that no such fixed and unalterable ar- nmgement of the sacred books, as that which is com- monly assumed, existed anterior to the fifth century of the Christian sera, and proves very distinctly that the place then assigned to Daniel by the Talmudists was wrf the place he had during the preceding period, or originally occupied. See Daioel, Book of. As respects the name given to the third division, the most prc)»ble account of it is, that at first it was friller —