RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Canon Law Canon of Scripture
Fathers have to say upon this matter is derived in part from IV Ezra,, and is equally fabulous.
The theory above mentioned has been supposed to be the one prevalent among the Jews themselves. But this has no other support than 2. The The- that the eminent rabbis David Kimchi ory of the (d. 1240) and Elias Levita (1472- Synagogue. 1549) remarked on the work of Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, in bringing together the twenty-four books in their divisions. The only Talmudic passage which can be quoted directly in its behalf is in Baba Baihra ; for the other quotations commonly made prove merely the care of Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue for the law, not for the canon; indeed, mostly for the oral law, and some also for alterations in the text. The passage is in these words: " The order of the prophets is Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve. Hosea is the first, because it is written, ' The beginning of the word of Jehovah by Hosea ' (i. 2). Did God, then, speak to Hosea first? and have there not been many prophets between him and Moses? R. Johanan explained this as meaning that Hosea was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that time, — Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah. Why, then, was he not put first? Because his prophesy stands next to that of the latest prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: he is therefore counted with them. So this prophet should have been kept by himself, and inserted before Jeremiah? No: he was so small that he might then easily have been lost. Since Isaiah lived before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ought he not to have been put before them? [No.] because Kings closes with destruction, Jeremiah is entirely occupied with it, Ezekiel begins with it but ends with consolation, while Isaiah is all consolation; hence we can not connect destruction with destruction, and consolation with consolation. But Job lived in the time of Moses; why should he not come in the first part? No; for it would never do to begin with misfortune. Yet Ruth contains misfortune? True; but it issues in joy. And who wrote them? Moses wrote his book and the Balaam section and Job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses in the Law (Deut. xxxiv. 5-12). Samuel wrote his book, Judges and Ruth. David wrote Psalms for ten Elders. Jeremiah wrote his book, Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, The Twelve, Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote his book and the genealogies in Chronicles up to his time. That is a support for the saying of Rab; for Rab Jehuda says, in the name of Rab, ' Ezra did not leave Babylon until he had written his own family register.' Who ended it? Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah." The understanding of this passage depends upon observing that the word " wrote " is used in different senses, of actual authorship, of editorship, and of merely collecting and placing together books which had not before been brought into connection. It will be perceived that the passage says nothing about the closing of the canon, but also that it
would readily furnish ground for the idea that the canon was closed in the time of Ezra and the Great Synagogue.
Both theories agree in assigning the collection of the Old Testament to Ezra and his companions and successors, and also asserting that the division into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa (see below) was primitive. But against this, two objections may be urged: (1) Critical
3. Criticism investigation assigns the first part of of the Two the Book of Daniel, on account of its
Theories. Greek words, to a time when Greek was understood, and the second part to the Maccabean age (see Daniel, Book of); (2) The position of some of the historical books, e.g., Ezra and Daniel, among the Hagiographa, is inexplicable if the canon was made at one time. Moses Maimonides, David Kimchi, and Abarbanel explained the fact by a difference in inspiration. But Christ calls Daniel a prophet (Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14).
The Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, preserved their sacred writings in sacred places. So the law was put by the side of the ark of the covenant (Deut. xxxi. 26), with its additions by Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 26); Samuel laid the law of the kingdom " before the Lord " (I Sam. x.
4. Positive 25); Hilkiah, the high priest under Exposition. Josiah, found the book of the law a. The Pen- "in the house of the Lord" (II Kings
tateuch — xxii. 8). We are, therefore, safe in the So-called believing that since the time of Mo- " First ses documents and intelligence con- Canon." cerning the Mosaic giving of the law, besides the tables of the covenant, and also whatever of law and history Moses had written, were carefully preserved in the sanctuary (Ex. xxiv. 4, 7, xxxiv. 27; Num. xxxiii. 2). The priests also would retain partly oral and partly written information (subsequently combined in the Priestcode) in regard to many similar matters. The existence of an authoritative code is proved (a) by the use of the " Book of the Covenant " in Deut., and (b) in the Priest-code; (c) by Hos. viii. 12; (d) by II Kings xxii. The Books of Kings, finished during the exile, mention by name the " Book of the Law of Moses," by which only Deuteronomy is meant (cf. II Kings xiv. 6; Deut. xxiv. 16; I Kings ii. 3; II Kings xxiii. 25). The mention of the Book of the Law of Moses (Josh. i. 7-8; viii. 31, 34, xxiii. 6) can not be taken without limitation, since it proceeds from the Deuteronomic editor of Joshua. Hag. ii. 11-13 shows the existence of the Priestcode, dealing, as the passage does, with two statutes of that code. The Wellhausen hypothesis, that the Priest-code was the private possession of Ezra till 445 B.C., and that Neh. viii.-x. tells of the introduction of the law, is in incompatible contradiction with that passage. The lowest date for the separation of Joshua [from the Pentateuch] is the time of Nehemiah and the Samaritan schism. The prophets were the spiritual exhorters and guides of the people, and therefore held in high esteem by the faithful, whose natural desire to have a collection of their writings there is every reason to believe was early gratified. At all
Canon of Scripture