That the Rabbis entertained the same views of inspiration, appears not only from the distinctive name of Holy Writings' given to the Scriptures, but also from the directions that their touch defiled the hands, [6383] and that it was duty on the Sabbath to save them from conflagration, and to gather them up if accidentally scattered, and that it was not lawful for heirs to make division of a sacred roll (Comp. Shabb. xvi. 1; Erub. x. 3; Kel. xv. 6; Yad. iii. 2-5; iv. 5 [where special reference is made to Daniel 6]). From what we know of the state of feeling, we might have inferred, even if direct evidence had not existed that a distinctive and superior place would be ascribed to the Books of Moses. In point of fact, the other books of Scripture, alike the Prophets and the Hagiographa, [6384] are only designated as Qabbalah (received,' handed down, tradition), which is also the name given to oral tradition. [6385] It was said that the Torah was given to Moses (Jer. Sheq. vi. 1) in (letters of) white fire graven upon black fire,' although it was matter of despute whether he received it volume by volume or complete as a whole (Gitt. 60 a). But on the question of its inspiration not the smallest doubt could be tolerated. Thus, to admit generally, that the Torah as a whole was from heaven, except this (one) verse, which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not speak, but Moses of himself' was to become an infidel and a blasphemer (Sanh. 99 a). [6386] Even the concluding verses in Deuteronomy had been dictated by God to Moses, and he wrote them down - not repeating them, however, as before, but weeping as he wrote. It will readily be understood in what extravagant terms Moses himself was spoken of. It is not only that the expression man of God' was supposed to imply, that while as regarded the lower part of his nature Moses was man, as regarded the higher he was Divine, but that his glorification and exaltation amount to blasphemy. [6387] So far as inspiration or revelation' is concerned, it was said that Moses saw in a clear glass, the prophets in a dark one' - or, to put it otherwise: he saw through one glass, they through seven.' Indeed, although the opening words of Ps. lxxv. showed, that the Psalms were as much revelation as the Law, yet, if Israel had not sinned, they would have only received the Pentateuch, and the Book of Joshua,' and, in the time to come, of all Scripture the Pentateuch alone would retain its place. It was somewhat contemptuously remarked, that the Prophets uttered nothing as regarded practice that had not already been told in the Pentateuch (Taan. 9 a). It was but natural for Rabbinism to declare that the Law alone fully explained its meaning (at least according to their interpretation of it), while the Prophets left much in obscurity. [6388] To mark the distinction, it was forbidden to put the Law in the same wrapper with the Prophets, so as not to place perhaps the latter on the top of the former (Tos. Meg. iv. 20). Among the Prophets themselves there was a considerable difference, not only in style and training but even in substance (Sanh. 89 a), although all of them had certain common qualifications (comp. Ab. de R. Nathan, 37). Of all the prophets Isaiah was greatest, and stood next to Moses. Ezekiel saw all that Isaiah saw - but the former was like a villager, the latter like a townsman who saw the king (Chag. 13 b). Jeremiah and Amos were, so to speak, scolding, owing to the violence of their temperament, while Isaiah's was the book of consolation, especially in response to Jeremiah.
The Hagiographa or Kethubhim' also bear in the Talmud the general designation of Chokhmah,' wisdom. It has been asserted that, as the Prophetic Books, so the Hagiographa, were distinguished into anterior' (Psalms, Proverbs, Job) and posterior,' or else into great' and small.' But the statement rests on quite insufficient evidence. [6389] Certain, however, it is , that the Hagiographa, as we possess them, formed part of the Canon in the time of Jesus the son of Sirach - that is, even of the latest computation of his authorship, [6390] about the year 130 b.c. [6391] Even so, it would not be easy to vindicate, on historical grounds, the so-called Maccabean authorship of the Book of Daniel, which would fix its date about 105 b.c. For, if other considerations did not interfere, few students of Jewish history would be disposed to assert that a book, which dated from 104 b.c., could have found a place in the Jewish Canon. [6392] But, as explained in vol. i. p. 26, we would assign a much earlier date to the Book of Sirach. The whole question in its bearing on the New Testament is so important, that one or two further remarks may be allowed. Leaving aside most serious critical objections, and the unquestionable fact, that no amount of ingenuity can conciliate the Maccabean application of Dan. ix. 24-27 with the chronology of that period, [6393] while the Messianic interpretation fits in with it, [6394] other, and seemingly insuperable difficulties are in the way of the theory impugned. It implies, that the Book of Daniel was not an Appocryphal, but a Pseudepigraphic work; that of all such works it alone has come down to us in its Hebrew or Chaldee original; that a Pseudepigraphic work, nearly contemporary with the oldest portion of the Book of Enoch, should not only be so different from it, but that it should find admission into the Canon, while Enoch was excluded; that a Pseudepigraphon younger that Jesus the Son of Sirach should have been on the Khethubhim; and, finally, that it should have passed the repeated revision of different Rabbinic Colleges' - and that at times of considerable theological activity - without the suspicion being even raised that its authorship dated fromso late a period as a century an a half before Christ. And we have evidence that since the Babylonish exile, at least four revisions of the Canon took place within periods sufficiently distant from each other.