If the former of these questions should be answered in the affirmative, the latter would still remain a very material one, in respect to its bearing upon current opinions, and upon Old Testament interpretation. If we knew that a Canon was definitely formed by the Jews, on their return from the captivity, or at some later period, we should then need to inquire, for what purpose, and on what basis, was it formed. Was it intended to embrace all the existing remains of national literature, whether of a religious, political, historical, didactic, or poetical kind? This certainly, upon abstract grounds, is not an improbable supposition. Or was it designed to comprehend all writings, which for any reason were esteemed particularly valuable? Or was it meant to include all which treated of sacred subjects, and no other? Or was its aim to give those (and no other), which were understood to have been composed by divinely commissioned men? He who should assume this latter ground, if we knew that a definite Canon had been formed, would still have to prove that it was formed on the principle which he alleges, rather than on either of the others, which in the nature of things are equally reasonable; and further, that it was discreetly, and with sufficient knowledge, formed upon this principle. And, in order to prove this, it would not be enough for him to urge passages of the New Testament, which call the Jewish writings by such names as "the Holy Scriptures;" "* for, supposing the phrase to have been applied to all the writings indiscriminately which are found in our received collection, and to no other, still it would remain to be said, 1., that merely to give to these writings, in speaking of them, the name by which they were currently known, could not safely be con * Rom. i. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 15. strued into an undistinguishing confirmation of all the authority, which might in any quarter be ascribed to them; and, 2., that the epithet "holy" or "sacred" by no means necessarily implies so high a character, as that of supernatural revelation from God. sacred, which is entitled to reverence. holy to us, which is connected, though it should be but remotely, with our religion. Every thing is If we knew the time and author of such a uniform arrangement as has been supposed, we should have some guidance, at least, in ascertaining also its principles. But not only, as has been remarked, has history left us altogether in the dark upon this point; it must be owned further, in reply to the first question above proposed, that there does not appear to have been any absolutely uniform Canon of the Old Testament, till three or four centuries, at least, after the New Testament revelation. If this be true, then it follows, not only that the uniformity was introduced at a period too late to admit of its being intelligently done, but still more, that, in giving this kind of definiteness to what earlier times had left indefinite, a contradiction was offered to the truth of history. If before, and at the time of our Saviour, the Jews did not know, that precisely the books which compose their and our present received Canon possessed a peculiar and exclusive character of sacredness, then it never could become known to the Jews, for instance, of the fourth century; since it could only be through the channel of that earlier age, that the opinion, allowing that it was a correct one, could have come down to this later. Of testimonies to the extent of a Jewish collection of sacred books, the most ancient, and therefore one of especial value, is that of the Alexandrine Version. If, in the three centuries before Jesus' advent, there existed such a Canon, as has been supposed, and if it is to be presumed that Jewish translators would have observed it in making a version into Greek, then it was not the same with the now established Canon, inasmuch as, in addition to the books herein contained, the Alexandrine version comprises nearly all the matter, embraced in our English collection called the Apocrypha. Philo the Jew, of Alexandria, a copious writer, contemporary with our Saviour, is naturally looked to for information on this subject. He gives us, however, no account of a Jewish Canon, though he quotes, or refers to, nineteen books of the Old Testament, applying to some of them such titles as "The Prophetic Word,” "Sacred Writings," &c. Of the others received by us, he makes no mention; and on the other hand he occasionally borrows expressions from writings which we reckon as Apocryphal. Leaving the Egyptian Jews, the earliest authority, to which we can have recourse for the prevailing opinion on this subject in Palestine, is the New Testament. It is thought to refer in some way to all the books of the Old, except six ;* but it nowhere says any thing of a Canon, either in the use of that expression, or any equivalent. As to any number of books, intended to be embraced in designations which it employs, its language is altogether indefinite. If one should speak of the "English Classics," it would be quite safe to infer that he meant to include Milton and Shakspeare, and some others, in the description; but how comprehensive he designed it to be, would be left uncertain. So he, who spoke of the "Sacred Scriptures" to Jews, would certainly be understood as not intending to omit the writings of Moses; but his language would not define Judges, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah. Seventeen of the thirty-nine books are not directly quoted. how many others were associated in his mind under that title, nor would it convey his opinion that it did pertain at all to a precise and immutable number. Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles,* a priest, and a Pharisee. A passage from his writings is the most important, that is adduced in this controversy in favor of the prevailing opinion. I give it below. The following is a correct translation ; "There are not with us myriads of books, inconsistent and conflicting; but only twenty-two, comprising a record of all time, which are justly confided in. And of these, five are the books of Moses, which embrace laws and the tradition of the origin of man, extending to his death. This period falls a little short of three thousand years. And from Moses' death to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote in thirteen * He was born, A. D. 37. † 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 Μουσίως, 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, οἱ μετὰ Μωϋσῆν προφῆται τὰ κατ ̓ αὐτοὺς πραχθέντα συνέγραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις. Αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τίσο σαρες 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 τῆς 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 προσθεῖναί τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν, οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκε. Πᾶσι δὲ σύμφυτόν ἐστιν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γενέσεως Ἰουδαίοις, τὸ νομίζειν αὐτὰ Θεοῦ δόγματα, καὶ τούτοις ἐμμένειν, καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, εἰ δέοι, θνήσκειν ἡδέως· ἤδη οὖν πολλοὶ πολλάκις ἑώρανται τῶν αἰχμαλώτων, στρέβλας καὶ παντοίων θανάτων τρόπους ἐν θεάτροις ὑπομένοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ μηδὲν προέσθαι παρὰ τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὰς μετὰ τούτων ἀναγραφάς. Joseph. contra Apion. lib. 1, § 8. The word 9tia, which would require the last clause of the first period to be rendered, "which are justly considered divine," has crept into the late editions of Josephus, from Eusebius's quotation of the passage, in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 3, cap. 10. See Eichhorn's Einleitung in das A. T., § 40. Havercamp notes upon it; " Illud 9sia ex Eusebio.” books the things done in their times. The remaining four comprise hymns to God, and rules of life for man. From Artaxerxes down to our time, every thing has been recorded. But these records are not accounted worthy of equal credit with those before them, because the succession of prophets has not been exact. "And it is plain in our conduct, what credit we have given to our own scriptures. For, though so long a time has passed, no one has ventured to add any thing to them, nor take away from them, nor alter them. But it is innate with Jews from their very birth, to esteem them directions of God, and adhere to them, and even cheerfully to die for them, if need should be. And many captives have often been seen, bearing tortures and every kind of death in the theatres, rather than admit a word against the laws, and the records [interspersed, or connected] with them." If it was essentially the more numerous books of our present Canon, that were meant by Josephus to be comprehended within the number twenty-two, such a distribution of them, by whomsoever made or adopted, was obviously a device to conform the number to that of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet; and accordingly it required an arbitrary arrangement of the contents of the several divisions, which greatly impairs the apparent definiteness of the statement. Modern critics differ in making this distribution. Unquestionably the undertaking is attended with difficulty. If Josephus had our present Canon in view, where, for instance, did he arrange the book of Job, to which individually he never alludes? Not among books of "hymns to God, and rules of life for man," for the four places of that collection are wanted for the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, the last three of which books he also And it may be thought that there are never names. |