second division was closed some time after Nehemiah. 4 (Compare 2 Maccab. ii. 13, § 14.)

the

A beginning had been made of a collection of Psalms ; but it was not completed, for compositions of this character continued to be made. Considerably late, perhaps at the end of the Persian period, the Jews turned their hand to the formation of the third division, collection of the Hagiographa, which, however, long remained changeable and open, so that even the book of Daniel, which was not written till the time of the Maccabees, could find a place in it.

The reception of historical and of some prophetical writings into the Hagiographa can be explained only on the hypothesis that both the former collections were closed when this was begun. Such is the opinion of Bertholdt; but Hengstenberg has revived the dogmatic view of the later Jews, according to which, the threefold division of the Old Testament is made to rest on the different relation in which their authors stood to God." According to Hävernik, it is not the contents or the inspiration, but the composition of the book, which makes the difference. The second division was written by prophets; that is, by men of the proper prophetic calling. The third was composed by men who were inspired, it is true, but yet were not prophets. But the Lamentations of Jeremiah stand in the way of this theory."

* L. c. vol. i. p. 70, sqq. [See Spinoza, Tractat. Theol. polit. ch. 8, 9.]

• Authentie der Daniel und Integritat des Sacharjah, p. 25, sqq.

§ 14.

PRETENDED AUTHORS OF THE COLLECTION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Christian writers have hitherto adduced a pretended Jewish tradition to this effect that the books of the Old Testament were collected, and the canon formed by Ezra, and the other members of the great synagogue, (,) whose very existence is a matter of historic doubt." But this tradition vanishes as soon as we examine the ground on which it rests. It is not a subject for refutation. [Still it may be interesting to know the opinion of other distinguished scholars on this point. Eichhorn thinks the books were collected immediately after the return from exile, and were laid up in the temple library. He thinks Ezra laid the foundation for a library, which was enlarged by Nehemiah, and other Hebrew patriots. He then proceeds to treat of the great synagogue, and says, certainly no considerate investigator of history, who is possessed of a sense of historical probability, can believe, in their full extent, the fables of the later Jews relating to the great synagogue, and to the learned and unlearned vocations of that body. Rau has incontestably proved that most of the accounts we have relating to it bear marks of improbability. But the whole legend must have proceeded from some actual fact. In the accounts of it, as in most legends of the kind, does not a real fact lie at the bottom,

a

one

See Buxtorf, Tiberias, c. 10. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 111. Leusden, Phil. Heb. diss. 9. I. H. Majus, Diss. sel. de Scrip., diss. 3. Bartolocci, Bib. Rabb. iv. 3. Huet. Demonstrat. evang. prop. 4, p. 535. Carpzov, Introd. pt. i. p. 1–9. Wolf, Bib. Heb. vol. ii. p. 2, and the authors he cites. Hävernik, 1. c. vol. i. pp. 1, 39, sqq.

F. E. Rau, De Synagoga magna, (Traj. 1726, 12mo.,) pt. ii. p. 1, c. 2, p. 66, sqq.

which Jewish fancy has converted into a romance? I will not venture, he adds, to account for the origin of the Jews' fables about their great synagogue, if it is credible that they are based on a real foundation. If such is the case, then some confusion of persons may have taken place. The great synagogue is said to have closed with Simon the Just, whom their traditions make a contemporary of Alexander the Great. But, in that case, he lived so early that the last book in the Jewish canon cannot be referred to his time. But if Simon the Just has been confounded with Simon the Maccabee, the high priest, then the canon may have been closed under his direction. But why should we take all this trouble to explain the origin of silly fables, by means of hypotheses, in favor of which no formal and satisfactory arguments can be adduced against such as wish to contest the matter? But confusions of this kind might easily take place, since no one knows any thing of the great synagogue before the date of the book Pirke Abot. This will be admitted by those who ascribe to it the greatest antiquity, namely, that of the Mishna, 220 A.C. Consequently, the legends of the great synagogue were first collected from Jewish tradition at a recent date."

Bertholdt refers the "company of scribes" (ovvayon roαuuation, 1 Macc. vii. 12) to the great synagogue, and says, (p. 69,) "Ezra seems actually to have laid the first foundation of the canon of the Old Testament; for, if he did nothing towards collecting the sacred books of his nation, it cannot be explained how this legend came into existence. It cannot be explained as a mere fiction of the later Jews, for it is quite natural that Ezra, who had found the Jewish colony in a very neglected

Eichhorn, § 5.

state, should establish a permanent college of distinguished and learned men at Jerusalem, under the name of the great synagogue. The only fiction is the story which the later Jews give us of the personal continuance of this college. When they limit the office of this body to collecting the sacred writings, they make a mistake. The college founded by Ezra was the general and complete reorganization—as well political as religious and ecclesiastical—of the nation, now reassembled in their native land. The business of seeking after the sacred writings, and of collecting them into a whole, belonged to a particular deputation, or congregation special committee of that body. We may then find a trace of it in history. It is called 'company of scribes,' (Macc. 1. c. ;) and then, for the first time, it becomes clear why Ezra has the surname of the scribe,' (Ezra vii. 6.) His other labors for the firm establishment of the religious constitution of his newly-animated people render it probable, that he shared the labor of this 'company of scribes,' and bore the name of 'scribe,' in common with all its members, or that he alone received this title because -as it is probable he presided over the body.""]

a

The following passages from the rabbins [have been relied upon as proof-texts, but they] contain not a word relating to the collection of the Old Testament.

Hieros. Megill. fol. 74, col. 2. Rabbi Phinehas said, "Moses appointed the formula of prayer that it might be

[The above remarks of Bertholdt have little value in themselves, but are inserted because they present the opinion of English and American scholars generally, in its most favorable light. Dr. Palfrey (Academical Lectures, vol. i. p. 21) calls the whole story a Jewish fable, but is perhaps in error, when he makes the Talmudic use of the phrase include "the leading men for the first three centuries after the return from Babylon." Abarbanel and others make the assembly consist of one hundred and twenty men.]

said, O God, great, mighty, and terrible.' (Deut. x. 17.) Jeremiah said, O God, great and mighty,' (xxxii. 18,) but he did not say 'terrible.' Daniel said, (ix. 4,) O God, great and terrible.' Why did he not say mighty'? But after the men of the great synagogue had arisen, they restored the magnificence to its pristine rank, so that it might be said, 'O our God, God great, mighty, and terrible, who keepest the covenant and mercy.

"Why were they called Because they restored

Babylon Joma. fol. 69, col. 2. 'men of the great synagogue'? the canon to its primitive state." Babylon Megill. fol. 20, col. 2. "By this tradition we have learned from the men of the great synagogue, that where it is said, it presages nothing but evil."

Pirke Abot. c. 1. "Moses received the law from Sinai, and gave it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; the prophets to the men of the great synagogue. They uttered these precepts: Be slow in judgment. Make many disciples. Make a hedge for the law.""

The following passages state merely the fact that some books of the Old Testament were reduced to writing by the great synagogue. -Baba-Bathra, fol. 14, c. 2; fol. 15, c. 1. "And who wrote them? Moses wrote his own book, and the sections Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote his own book, and eight books of the law. Samuel wrote his book, and Judges, and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms. .... Jeremiah wrote his book, and the book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. The men of the great synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel, and the book