and Ecclesiasticus shut out. To what extent Nehemiah had prepared the materials for these later Scribes it is impossible to say. But in all probability they did not confine themselves merely to the work of reproducing with strict accuracy the text of the older MSS. which came into their hands, but discharged the duties of editors by introducing corrections and amendments, and even inserting notes, wherever they thought it desirable, all which we include under the Later Legislation (LL).

594. It seems probable that the collection of prophecies, and of the historical books composed in prophetical style, was closed about the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., or not earlier than the end of the 4th. This may be inferred from the fact, that the inscriptions in Zech.xii. 1a,Mal.i.1, are apparently by the same hand, and by that of some editor who did not know the real name of the Prophet, called by us after his example Malachi,' i.e., 'My messenger,' with some allusion to Mal.iii.1, and who must consequently have lived a considerable time after Nehemiah, B.C.434, an older contemporary of the Prophet (326). We may conclude also that this collection contained then, and for some centuries afterwards, all the books which are now found in the second division of the Hebrew Scriptures (Prophets), together with Ruth and Lamentations, which two books are placed in this division by Melito and Origen, who profess to give the Hebrew Canon, and also by Jerome (Prol. Gal.), who says that some placed Ruth among the Hagiographa, but does not himself approve of this arrangement. Accordingly, the Alexandrian Jews, as appears by the LXX, had the very same collection of prophecies and prophetical histories ;* and in the Book of Daniel,

* With, however, one exception, viz. that after Jeremiah, there follows in the LXX the Book of Baruch, a prophetical writing, which, as far as we know, never stood in Palestine on the same line with the other prophetical books.' H.K.O.III. p.434. In the MSS. of the LXX, as is well known, all the historical books follow each other, and thus the distinction between the prophetæ priores and the hagiographical histories is disregarded. But this does not do away with the fact that

written B.C.165, which is placed in the third division* (Kethubim, Hagiographa, Scriptures), reference is made to the books,' ix.2, as a collection of prophecies already and for some time past in existence.

595. After this collection of the prophetical and propheticohistorical books had been completed, there seems to have been formed gradually a third collection, in which were gathered such writings as did not belong to the former classes, and yet seemed to deserve, not only to be preserved, but to have a place among the sacred books. Nehemiah had already made the first step towards this third division, when he collected psalms ascribed to David. Besides these there existed already (e.g. Job, Proverbs, Solomon's Song) or there now came into existence (e.g. 1 and 2Chron., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Daniel), other books, which for different reasons seemed to merit a place in this new collection; whereas the genealogical lists and other sources of information, which the Chronicler may have possessed besides the Books of Samuel and Kings, have been lost, because not preserved as Canonical Writings. To all appearance no clear view was entertained as to what this collection should include, and no definite plan was followed in enlarging it. It is very plain also that its contents and extent remained for a long time without being accurately defined, as appears not only from the

the very same prophecies and prophetical histories, which were regarded in Palestine as sacred, were also recognised as such at Alexandria.

* The Alexandrian Jews and JOSEPHUS not only mix up together the historical books of the 2nd and 3rd divisions, but place Daniel after the Greater Prophets, and not among the Kethubim—which shows how little importance they attributed to this threefold division, as indicating any essential difference between the books themselves in respect of their degrees of inspiration, as some have supposed. 'Daniel, with the apocryphal additions, follows upon Ezekiel; the apocryphal 1st or 3rd Book of Esdras comes as a 2nd, following the Canonical Ezra. Tobit and Judith are placed after Nehemiah, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus after Canticles, Baruch before, and the Epistle of Jeremiah after, Lamentations, the twelve Lesser Prophets before the four Greater, and the two Books of Maccabees come at the close of all.' Prof. PLUMPTRE, D.B.I.p.211.

great variations which must have existed between the MSS. used by the Jews of Alexandria and those of Palestine, but from the adoption by the former of the Apocryphal Books, as well as from the doubts which arose among the latter as to the Canonicity of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song."

596. On the other hand, the language used towards the end of the 1st century of our era, by JOSEPHUS, who numbers 22 books, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, and by the writer of 2(4)Esdras who reckons 24 books, xiv.44, perhaps according to the number of letters in the Greek alphabet, which is the number usually reckoned by the Jews, implies, that in that age the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was-if not universally, yet-generally held to have been completed and closed,—much in the same manner as the Canon of the N.T. was settled at last by setting the seal of Church authority on the books as they now stand, though including some which by ORIGEN, EUSEBIUS, &c., were placed among the disputed books.

* So Prof. WESTCOTT, while stating that after the Maccabean period 'the Bible appears as a whole,' says that it was natural that the several parts were not yet placed on an equal footing, nor regarded universally and in every respect with equal reverence,' D.B.I.p.252, and see his note, p.254, as to the 'doubts among the first Jewish doctors as to some books,' and he instances Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.

513

CHAPTER XXXI.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

597. We have now seen that the Books of the Old Testament, Historical or Prophetical, composed before or after the Captivity, as also the Proverbs, Psalms, and other Sacred Writings, when examined with due consideration of the ages in which they were written, with one voice confirm the view maintained in this work as to the unhistorical character of the Pentateuchal Story and the post-Captivity origin of the Levitical Legislation -with the single exception of the Chronicler's writings. If these thoroughly dishonest products of the priestly or Levitical mind in a very late age were removed from the Bible, the amazing contrast between the provisions of that Legislation in the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua and the actual facts of the history under the best Kings, in the earliest or latest times, would arrest the attention of most intelligent readers, and they would be soon led of themselves to the conclusion, without the evidence adduced for it in Part VI, that no such laws could ever have been laid down in the wilderness, since no trace of them appears in the practice of the age of David and Solomon.

598. At present the existence of these writings, mixed up with the other Canonical Scriptures, still exercises a kind of glamour on the minds of pious readers and even of theologians, as it has done for the last two thousand years; so that even Bp. HERVEY, D.B.I.p.308, &c., assumes the accounts in the Books of Chronicles of the courses of Priests and Levites, and the

ordinances of Divine service as arranged by David, and restored by Hezekiah and Josiah' to be 'genuine,' from which, he says,It necessarily follows that the Levitical Law, as set forth in the Pentateuch, was not invented after the return from the Captivity.

In short, the Chronicler's writings form a worthy pendant to the Levitical Legislation itself, in support of which, it is plain, they were written. And together they have so far imposed upon human credulity as to have utterly distorted the popular views as to the facts of early Hebrew history and the developement of religious life in Israel, and have thereby helped to generate the narrow exclusiveness of Judaism and some of the worst corruptions of Christianity.

599. Thus the influence of traditionary teaching has continued down to the present day the delusions, which originated in the fancies of unknown Jewish Scribes and were then adopted and propagated by eminent Fathers of the Church, most of them utterly ignorant of Hebrew (II.225), who endorsed with a very general approval the absurd legend about Ezra's having 'written down, by revelation, all the words of the ancient Scripture when these had been destroyed in the Chaldæan invasion' (VI.472). In this way, however, the meaning and significance of the ancient Hebrew Literature is entirely perverted, and its true beauty is lost. We no longer have a striking evidence in the Book of Esther of the activity in a later age of that same imaginative power which in earlier times produced the fictitious narratives of the story of the Exodus as well as this extravagant romance. We no longer find the same poetical genius, which gave birth-perhaps in David's age-to the Blessing of Jacob, the Song of Moses, or the Prophecies of Balaam, as well as (on our view) the 68th Psalm, producing in a more advanced time the splendid poetry of the Book of Job. We are not to see in Ecclesiastes signs of the advance of a materialistic philosophy, which reckons it the best thing for a man to enjoy the good