is probably led to this date by his erroneous view of the book of Esther.

lation.

The following is a translation of the passage in Jo- Comp. Gen. Rep. sephus: "For we have not among us myriads of books & Rev. Fol. IV, p. 9, note, for Mr. inconsistent and conflicting, but only twenty-two books, Morton's trans. containing the record of all past time, which are justly confided in [as divine.] Five of these belong to Moses, genuen, and contain the laws, and the tradition respecting the origin of mankind until his death. This time is little less than three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote the events of their times in thirteen books. The four remaining books contain hymns to God and rules of life, Every thing has been written from Artaxerxes to our time; but this later account is not esteemed of equal authority with the former, for there has not been a continual succession of prophets. From this fact it is evident how firmly we believe our books-that, during all this time which has passed, no one has dared to add to, to take from, or to change them. But it is natural to all Jews, from their very birth, to consider them doctrines of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, to die for them willingly."

• It is evident this word, ons, should be translated reign, and not beginning. See Müller, Belehr. von d. Kanon, p. 114, in opposition to Oeder, freie Untersuch. p. 63. See also Josephus, Antiq. book xi. c. 6, § 13: “And Mordecai wrote to the Jews, who live in the kingdom of Artaxerxes, to keep these days, and to celebrate the feast," &c.

• Contra Apion. l. i. c. 8: Οὐ γὰρ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ' ἡμῖν, ἀσυμφώνων καὶ μαχομένων· δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία, τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντα χρόνου τὴν ἀναγραφὴν, τὰ δικαίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα. Καὶ τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι τὰ Μωϋσέως, ἃ τούς τε νόμους περιέχει, καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀνθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν, μέχρι τῆς αὐτοῦ τελευτῆς· οὗτος ὁ χρόνος ἀπολείπει τρισχιλίων ὀλίγον ἐτῶν. ̓Απὸ δὲ τῆς Μωϋσέως τελευτῆς μέχρι τῆς ̓Αρταξέρξου τοῦ μετὰ Ξέρξην Περσῶν βασιλέως ἀρχῆς, (800

for men /

αιών

1. Psalms;

2. Proverbs;

3. Ecclesiastes;

4. Canticles.

Oeder, in his Free Inquiry on the Canon, p. 64, erroneously thinks the books of Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, were excluded."

§ 16.

GROUNDS OF RECEPTION INTO THE OLD TESTAMENT COL-
LECTION.

The one opinion that the collection of the Old Testament was regarded merely as a collection of national

ernment, not beginning) οἱ μετὰ Μωϋσῆν προφῆται τὰ κατ' αὐτοὺς πραχθέντα συνέγραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις (Antiqq. Jud. l. xi. c. 6, § 13: 'Έγραψε δὲ Μαρδοχαῖος τοῖς ἐντῃ 'Αρταξέρξου βασιλέως ζῶσιν Ιουδαίοις, ταύτας παραφυλάσσειν τὰς ἡμέρας καὶ ἑορτὴν ἄγειν αὐτὰς, κτλ.) αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. ̓Απὸ δὲ 'Αρταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα· πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν. Δῆλον δ' ἐστὶν ἔργῳ, πῶς ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις γράμμασι πεπιστεύκαμεν. Τοσούτου γὰρ αἰῶνος ἤδη παρωχηκότος, οὔτε προσθεῖναι τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν, οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκεν. Πᾶσι δὲ συμφυτόν ἐστιν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γενέσεως Ιουδαίοις τὸ νομίζειν αὐτὰ Θεοῦ δόγματα, καὶ τούτοις ἐμμένειν καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, εἰ δέοι, θνήσκειν ἡδέως.

See, also, Eichhorn, § 43. [See Academical Lectures by J. G. Palfrey, (Boston, 1838,) vol. i. p. 25, sqq.] See Müller, Belehr. von Kanon, p. 126. Compare Chr. F. Schmidt, Enarratio Sententiæ Flav. Josephi de Libris V. T.; Viteb. 1777.

writings, and the other that it was considered a collection of sacred writings, are properly the same, to judge from the contents of most of the books of the Old Testament and the theocratic spirit of Jewish antiquity; for what was truly national was religious likewise. In either case, the authors are regarded as inspired, and their writings as the fruits of a holy inspiration."

[Philo and Josephus had a high regard for the writers of the Old Testament as prophets, and for their writings as divine communications. The latter sets a limit to the extension of the prophetic spirit. (See the passage from Josephus in § 15.) They both formed sublime notions, though bordering upon superstition, of the manner of their inspiration, and attributed an unconscious state to that soul which was possessed by God. Moses stands above all the prophets; he is the greatest, and attained the highest degree of inspiration. His writings contain pure, divine revelations, inscrutable to human wisdom, and only intelligible to the inspired. But Philo likewise extends the divine inspiration to the Greek translators of the Old Testament; and both maintain that the gifts of prophecy and inspiration are not wholly extinct, though they are limited to individuals."]

The Talmud says, "What is that which is written 'I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and a commandment which I have written, that thou mayest teach them'? (Ex. xxiv. 12.) The tables' are the Decalogue; the 'law' is the Pentateuch; the 'commandment' is the Mishna; 'what I have written' is the Prophets and Hagiographa; that thou mayest teach them,' means the Gemara. This shows that all of these were

Eichhorn, vol. i. § 3, p. 15, and Corrodi, vol. i. p. 8, do not stand in so determined opposition as Bauer pretends. Einleit. p. 40. Josephus, cont. Apion. loc. cit.

De Wette, Bib. Dogmatik, § 144.

committed to Moses on Mount Sinai."— Berachoth, p. 6, 5, c. 1.

Again, Rabbi Azariah says, (in Meor Enaim, p. 175, b,) "Ezra only applied his hand to books which were composed by prophets through the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred tongue.'

The writings of Moses, the prophets, and David, were considered inspired on account of the personal character of their authors. But the other writings, which are in part anonymous, derive their title to inspiration sometimes from their contents, and sometimes from the cloud of antiquity which rests on them. Some of the writings that were composed after the exile,—such, for example, as the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel,-were put in this list on account of the ancient authors to whom they were ascribed; others, -for example, Chronicles and Esther,―on account of their contents; and still others, Ezra and Nehemiah, on account of the distinguished merit of their authors in restoring the law and the worship of God.

But there must be a period in which the ancient, sacred literature, whether written before the exile or after it, wherein the holy spirit had lived, seemed to be separated from the modern, profane literature, in which this spirit was no longer living. According to the later Jews, this period took place after Malachi, the last of the prophets; yet certainly it was some time before men became conscious that they were forsaken by that spirit. Jesus the Son of Sirach belongs to a more modern time; and yet he is more worthy of reception than several others that are admitted. According to

a

See, also, Maimonides, More Neboch, ii. 45, p. 316. Matt. xv. 3, 4, 6; xxii. 43. 2 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Pet. i. 10. 2 Pet. i. 21.

Eichhorn, § 15, p. 98. Bauer, p. 40. Bertholdt, p. 85. See, also, De Wette, 1. c. § 143, and Raschi, in § 15, above.

and

thers

Hitzig, (on Psalm i. 18,) the writings of the Son of Palms, Vol.
Sirach were not included, because the Hebrew origi- 2, p. 11 & .
nal was lost.

^

[The unfortunate age which succeeded seems deserted by the holy spirit. The Jews supposed its efficacy ended when the Old Testament was closed, and that no prophet arose afterwards. (1 Macc. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41. Compare Psalm lxxiv. 9.) The authors of the Old Testament were considered prophets; but, in those times, the nation had less lofty views of their inspiration than of their miracles and visions. Moses was deemed the greatest prophet. His law was divine; it was the substance and sum total of all that was worth knowing. It was the source of life; it was eternal. Man was to become wise by searching the Law and the Prophets. He could even derive a certain inspiration from them."

The Talmudists maintain that, after the death of
the later prophets,- Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, —
the holy spirit was taken from Israel. Five things, say
the ark,
they, were wanting to the second temple :
the urim and thummim, fire from heaven, the shekinah,
and the holy spirit of prophecy. There was no proph-
ecy in the second temple, after it was finished, though it
had continued as long as these prophets were alive, that
is, for forty years after this temple was begun. They
maintain, however, that revelations were sometimes
made to individuals after this time, though the spirit of
prophecy was imparted to them only in small measure.'
Eichhorn says that, soon after the return of the He-

• See De Wette, Dogmatik, § 144.

[See more on this subject in Carpzov, 1. c. pt. iii. ch. xxv. This doctrine of the exclusive and miraculous inspiration of the writers of the Old Testament does not seem to have existed during the life of the writers themselves, still less to have been entertained by them. The same remark may be made of the writers of the New Testament, with equal truth.]