In the Septuagint the K'thubim are placed between the hiatoricBl books and the later prophets.1 Of ooul"l!e, the Canon of Alexandria waa a more elastlo thing then that of Jerusalem, still the former was as muoh Jewish aa the latter; lf the chrono• logiMl order were import.ant, and the K'thubim were supposed to be later than the other books, then in the Aleundrian Oanon as well &a in that of Jerusalem thoy would have boon placod 111st. Further, the order of Alexandria in regard to the several books is not i11,•11riable; et.ill, the three divisions follow the aame order generally, Thie order is that followed by Melito. Nothing, then, can be deduced from the euoceesion of the three parts of the Jewish canon, We do not find any evidence that in the rest of the books there is any attempt at a chronological order. In tho Peshitte. there is no distinction me.de between the classes, and the arrangement of the books is highly peculiar-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbel"l!1 Deuteronomy, Job, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, the minor prophets, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel If we take the K'thubim alone, we find one Maesoretio order was-Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah. This is the order followed by Spanish manuscripts; the order in our Hebrew Bibles is derived from that followed in German manuscripts. It ie Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth ( the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamen ta lions, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. It would only be a man very ignorant of chronology who would say that chronology had anything to do with the succession of the books here. In both of these Massoretic orders there is in reality an utter dis- '"' gard of chronology. (2) Thenex tq uestion-Why was the Book of Daniel not reckoned among the prophets? Why was it placed among the K'thubl.m? There is a prior question to be put-Was Daniel not originally placed among the prophets? It must be noted that in the Alexandrian Canon it was among the prophetical books. Snch also is its position in the Peshitta. Further, in Josepbus's acconnt of the canon be reckons the books twenty-two, and be places only four among the K'thubim, and these he describes in terms that snit Proverbs, Job, Psslms, Ecclesiastes, and perhaps Song of Solomon, but not Daniel The rest of the books, with the exception of the Law, he ascribes to the prophets. Melito also, whose catalogue of the canonical books seems to be that of the Jews of Asia Minor, places Daniel among the prophets. The question then really is- Why did the Jewish rabbins of the fifth century A.D. place Daniel among the K'thubim? By this time Daniel was being specially appealed to by Christians in their controversies with the Jews, and hence their dogmatic views might afford the reason. But other reasons are not far to aeek. Daniel was not a professional prophet. David is called a prophet by Peter in A.cts ii. 30, yet his Psalms are among the K'thubim, David was more than a prophet, and his works were not in the prophetic style. Moses was a 11rophet, yet bis books are not included among the prophetic books. If it is said that the Law was more sacred than even the prophets, be was credited by the Rabbinic writers with being the author of Job, and it is placed among the K'thubim. Moses also was more than a prophet.1 But even to be the work of a professional prophet was This is tbe case with the K'thnbim generally, but some books are placed differently, 1
Ml Ruth among the former, and the Lamentations among the latter prophets-places these books wuat have occupied in some Jewish catalogue, or the numbers would not have been correct. • The e.ttewpt to rebut this by an appeal to Amos vii, His beside the question: e. glance e.t the original de.11troys the ugument at once. There is no verb in the sentence; it is only TIIFl BOOK OF DANIEL. XXXV