The first important part of the Old Testament put together as a whole was
the Pentateuch, or rather, the five books of Moses and Joshua. This was
preceded by smaller documents, which one or more redactors embodied in it.
The earliest things committed to writing were probably _the ten words_
proceeding from Moses himself, afterwards enlarged into the ten
commandments which exist at present in two recensions (Exod. xx., Deut.
v.) It is true that we have the oldest form of the decalogue from the
Jehovist not the Elohist; but that is no valid objection against the
antiquity of the nucleus, out of which it arose. It is also probable that
several legal and ceremonial enactments belong, if not to Moses himself,
at least to his time; as also the Elohistic list of stations in Numbers
xxxiii. To the same time belongs the song of Miriam in Exodus xv.,
probably consisting of a few lines at first, and subsequently enlarged;
with a triumphal ode over the fall of Heshbon (Numbers xxi. 27-30). The
little poetical piece in Numbers xxi. 17, 18, afterwards misunderstood and
so taken literally, is post-Mosaic.
During the unsettled times of Joshua and the Judges there could have been
comparatively little writing. The song of Deborah appeared, full of poetic
force and fire. The period of the early kings was characterized not only
by a remarkable development of the Hebrew people and their consolidation
into a national state, but by fresh literary activity. Laws were written
out for the guidance of priests and people; and the political organization
of the rapidly growing nation was promoted by poetical productions in
which spiritual life expressed its aspirations. Schools of prophets were
instituted by Samuel, whose literary efforts tended to purify the worship.
David was an accomplished poet, whose psalms are composed in lofty
strains; and Solomon may have written a few odes. The building of the
temple, and the arrangements connected with its worship, contributed
materially to a written legislation.
During this early and flourishing period appeared the book of the Wars of
Jehovah,(31) a heroic anthology, celebrating warlike deeds; and the book
of Jashar,(32) also poetical. Jehoshaphat is mentioned as court-annalist
to David and Solomon.(33) Above all, the Elohists now appeared, the first
of whom, in the reign of Saul, was author of annals, beginning at the
earliest time which were distinguished by genealogical and chronological
details as well as systematic minuteness, by archaic simplicity, and by
legal prescriptions more theoretical than practical. The long genealogical
registers with an artificial chronology and a statement of the years of
men’s lives, the dry narratives, the precise accounts of the gradual
enlargement of divine laws, the copious description of the tabernacle and
the institution of divine worship, are wearisome, though pervaded by a
theoretic interest which looks at everything from a legal point of view. A
second or junior Elohist was less methodical and more fragmentary,
supplying additional information, furnishing new theocratic details, and
setting forth the relation of Israel to heathen nations and to God. In
contrast with his predecessor, he has great beauty of description, which
is exemplified in the account of Isaac’s sacrifice and the history of
Joseph; in picturesque and graphic narratives interspersed with few
reflections. His parallels to the later writer commonly called the
Jehovist, are numerous. The third author, who lived in the time of Uzziah,
though more mythological than the Elohists, was less formal. His
stand-point is prophetic. The third document incorporated with the
Elohistic ones formed an important part of the whole, exhibiting a
vividness which the first lacked; with descriptions of persons and things
from another stand-point. The Jehovist belonged to the northern kingdom;
the Elohists were of Judah.
The state of the nation after Rehoboam was unfavorable to literature. When
the people were threatened and attacked by other nations, divided among
themselves in worship and all higher interests, rent by conflicting
parties, the theocratic principle which was the true bond of union could
not assert itself with effect. The people were corrupt; their religious
life debased. The example of the kings was usually prejudicial to
political healthiness. Contact with foreigners as well as with the older
inhabitants of the land, hindered progress. In these circumstances the
prophets were the true reformers, the advocates of political liberty,
expositors of the principles that give life and stability to a nation. In
Judah, Joel wrote prophetic discourses; in Israel, Amos and Hosea. Now,
too, a redactor put together the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents,
making various changes in them, adding throughout sentences or words that
seemed desirable, and suppressing what was unsuited to his taste. Several
psalm-writers enriched the national literature after David. Learned men at
the court of Hezekiah recast and enlarged (Proverbs xxv.-xxix.) the
national proverbs, which bore Solomon’s name because the nucleus of an
older collection belonged to that monarch. These literary courtiers were
not prophets, but rather scribes. The book of Job was written, with the
exception of Elihu’s later discourses, which were not inserted in it till
after the return from Babylon; and Deuteronomy, with Joshua, was added to
the preceding collection in the reign of Manasseh. The gifted author of
Deuteronomy, who was evidently imbued with the prophetic spirit, completed
the Pentateuch, _i.e._, the five books of Moses and Joshua, revising the
Elohist-Jehovistic work, and making various additions and alterations. He
did the same thing to the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings;
which received from him their present form. Immediately before and during
the exile there were numerous authors and compilers. New psalms appeared,
more or less national in spirit. Ezekiel, Jeremiah and others prophesied;
especially an unknown seer who described the present condition of the
people, predicting their coming glories and renovated worship in strains
of far-reaching import.(34) This great prophet expected the regeneration
of the nation from the pious portion of it, the prophets in particular,
not from a kingly Messiah as Isaiah did; for the hopes resting on rulers
out of David’s house had been disappointed. His aspirations turned to
spiritual means. He was not merely an enthusiastic seer with comprehensive
glance, but also a practical philosopher who set forth the doctrine of the
innocent suffering for the guilty; differing therein from Ezekiel’s theory
of individual reward and punishment in the present world—a theory out of
harmony with the circumstances of actual life. The very misfortunes of the
nation, and the signs of their return, excited within the nobler spirits
hopes of a brighter future, in which the flourishing reign of David should
be surpassed by the universal worship of Jehovah. In consequence of their
outward condition, the prophets of the exile were usually writers, like
Ezekiel, not public speakers; and their announcement of glad tidings could
only be transmitted privately from person to person. This explains in part
the oblivion into which their names fell; so that the author or redactor
of Jeremiah l., li.; the author of chapters xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10,
xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv., inserted in Isaiah; and, above all, the
Babylonian Isaiah, whom Hitzig improbably identifies with the high-priest
Joshua, are unknown. After the return from Babylon the literary spirit
manifested itself in the prophets of the restoration—Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi—who wrote to recall their countrymen to a sense of religious
duties; though their ideas were borrowed in part from older prophets of
more original genius. The book of Esther appeared, to make the observance
of the purim feast, which was of Persian origin, more general in
Palestine. The large historical work comprising the books of Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Chronicles, was compiled partly out of materials written by
Ezra and Nehemiah, partly out of older historical records which formed a
portion of the national literature. Several temple-psalms were also
composed; a part of the present book of Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, whose tone
and language betray its late origin; and Jonah, whose diction puts its
date after the Babylonian captivity. The Maccabean age called forth the
book of Daniel and various psalms. In addition to new productions there
was an inclination to collect former documents. To Zechariah’s authentic
prophecies were added the earlier ones contained in chapters ix.-xiv.; and
the Psalms were gradually brought together, being made up into divisions
at different times; the first and second divisions proceeding from one
redactor, the third from another, the fourth and fifth from a still later.
Various writings besides their own were grouped around the names of
earlier prophets, as was the case with Isaiah and Jeremiah.
The literature is more indebted for its best constituents to the prophetic
than to the priestly order, because the prophets were preachers of
repentance and righteousness whose great aim was to make Israel a
Jehovah-worshipping nation to the exclusion of other gods. Their
utterances were essentially ethical and religious; their pictures of the
future subjective and ideal. There was silently elaborated in their
schools a spiritual monotheism, over against the crude polytheism of the
people generally—a theocratic ideal inadequately apprehended by gross and
sensuous Israel—Jehovism simple and sublime amid a sacerdotal worship
which left the heart impure while cleansing the hands. Instead of taking
their stand upon the law, with its rules of worship, its ceremonial
precepts and penalties against transgressors, the prophets set themselves
above it, speaking slightingly of the forms and customs which the people
took for the whole of religion. To the view of such as were prepared to
receive a faith that looked for its realization to the future, they helped
to create a millennium, in which the worship of Jehovah alone should
become the basis of a universal religion for humanity. In addition to the
prophetic literature proper, they wrote historical works also. How
superior this literature is to the priestly, appears from a comparison of
the Kings and Chronicles. The subjective underlies the one; the objective
distinguishes the other. Faith in Jehovah, clothed, it may be in sensible
or historical forms, characterizes the one; reference of an outward order
to a divine source, the other. The sanctity of a people under the
government of a righteous God, is the object of the one; the sanctity of
institutions, that of the other. Even when the prophets wrote history,
_the facts_ are subordinate to _the belief_. Subjective purposes colored
their representation of real events.
To them we are indebted for the Messianic idea, the hope of a better time
in which their high ideal of the theocracy should be realized. With such
belief in the future, with pious aspirations enlivening their patriotism,
did they comfort and encourage their countrymen. The hope, general or
indefinite at first, was afterwards attached to the house of David, out of
which a restorer of the theocracy was expected, a king pre-eminent in
righteousness, and marvelously gifted. It was not merely a political but a
religious hope, implying the thorough purification of the nation, the
extinction of idolatry, the general spread and triumph of true religion.
The pious wishes of the prophets, often repeated, became a sort of
doctrine, and contributed to sustain the failing spirit of the people. The
indefinite idea of a golden age was commoner than that of a personal
prince who should reign in equity and peace. Neither was part of the
national faith, like the law, or the doctrine of sacrifice; and but a few
of the prophets portrayed a king, in their description of the period of
ideal prosperity.
The man who first gave public sanction to a portion of the national
literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a canon. He was the leader
in restoring the theocracy after the exile, “a ready scribe in the law of
Moses, who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to teach
in Israel statutes and judgments.” As we are told that he brought the book
of the law of Moses before the congregation and read it publicly, the idea
naturally arises that he was the final redactor of the Pentateuch,
separating it from the historical work consisting of Joshua and the
subsequent writings, of which it formed the commencement. Such was the
first canon given to the Jewish Church after its reconstruction—ready for
temple service as well as synagogue use. Henceforward the Mosaic book
became an authoritative guide in spiritual, ecclesiastical, and civil
matters, as we infer from various passages in Ezra and Nehemiah and from
the chronicler’s own statements in the book bearing his name. The doings
of Ezra with regard to the Scriptures are deduced not only from what we
read of him in the Biblical book that bears his name, but also from the
legend in the fourth book of Ezdras,(35) where it is related that he
dictated by inspiration to five ready writers ninety-four books; the first
twenty-four of which he was ordered to publish openly that the worthy and
unworthy might read, but reserved the last seventy for the wise. Though
the twenty-four books of the Old Testament cannot be attributed to him,
the fact that he copied and wrote portions need not be questioned. He
edited _the law_, making the first canon or collection of books, and
giving it an authority which it had not before. Talmudic accounts
associate with him the men of the great synagogue. It is true that they
are legendary, but there is a foundation of fact beneath the fanciful
superstructure. As to Ezra’s treatment of the Pentateuch, or his specific
mode of redaction, we are left for the most part to conjecture. Yet it is
safe to affirm that he added;—making new precepts and practices either in
place of or beside older ones. Some things he removed as unsuited to the
altered circumstances of the people; others he modified. He threw back
later enactments into earlier times. It is difficult to discover all the
parts that betray his hand. Some elaborate priestly details show his
authorship most clearly. If his hand be not visible in Leviticus, chap.
xvii.-xxvi.; a writer not far removed from his time is observable; Ezekiel
or some other. It is clear that some of the portion (xxv. 19-22; xxvi.
3-45) is much later than the Elohists, and belongs to the exile or
post-exile period. But great difficulty attaches to the separation of the
sources here used; even after Kayser’s acute handling of them. It is also
perceptible from Ezekiel xx. 25, 26, that the clause in Exodus xiii. 15,
“but all the first-born of my children I redeem,” was added after the
exile, since the prophet shows his unacquaintance with it. The statute
that all which openeth the womb should be burnt in sacrifice to Jehovah,
appeared inhuman not only to Ezekiel, but to Ezra or his associates in
re-editing the law; and therefore the clause about the redemption of every
first-born male was subjoined. Ezra, a second Moses in the eyes of the
later Jews, did not scruple to refer to Moses what was of recent origin,
and to deal freely with the national literature. Such was the first
canon—that of Ezra the priest and scribe.
The origin of the great synagogue is noticed in Ezra x. 16, and described
more particularly in Nehemiah viii.-x., the members being apparently
enumerated in x. 1-27; at least the Megila Jer. (i. 5) and Midrash Ruth (§
3) speak of an assembly of eighty-five elders, who are probably found in
the last passage. One name, however, is wanting, for only eighty-four are
given; and as Ezra is not mentioned among them, the conjecture of Krochmal
that it has dropped out of x. 9, may be allowed. Another tradition gives
the number as one hundred and twenty, which may be got by adding the
“chief of the fathers” enumerated in Ezra viii. 1-14 to the hundred and
two heads of families in Ezra ii. 2-58. Whether the number was the same at
the commencement as afterwards is uncertain. Late Jewish writers, however,
such as Abarbanel, Abraham ben David, Ben Maimun, &c., speak as if it
consisted of the larger number at the beginning; and have no scruple in
pronouncing Ezra president, rather than Nehemiah.(36)
The oldest extra-biblical mention of the synagogue, is in the Mishnic
treatise _Pirke Aboth_, where it is said, “Moses received the laws from
Mount Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders
to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the great
synagogue. These last spake these words: ‘Be slow in judgment; appoint
many disciples; make a hedge for the law.’ ”(37) In the Talmudic _Baba
Bathra_, their biblical doings are described: “Moses wrote his book, the
section about Balaam and job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses of
the law. Samuel wrote his book and judges and Ruth. David wrote the book
of Psalms _by_ (?)(38) ten elders, by Adam the first man, by Melchizedek,
by Abraham, by Moses, by Heman, by Jeduthun, by Asaph, and the three sons
of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book, the books of Kings and Lamentations.
Hezekiah and his friends wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Coheleth;
the men of the great synagogue, Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel and
Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of Chronicles down to
himself.”(39) This passage has its obscurities. What is meant by the verb
_write_!(40) Does it mean _composition_ and then something else; the
former in the first part of the passage, and _editing_ in the second?
Rashi explains it of _composition_ throughout, which introduces absurdity.
The most obvious interpretation is that which understands the verb of
_writing_ in one place, and _editing_ in the second. But it is improbable
that the author should have used the same word in different senses, in one
and the same passage. Bloch(41) understands it of _copying_ or _writing
out_, a sense that suits the procedure of the men of the great synagogue
in regard to Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, &c., but is inapplicable to
Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, &c. It is probable enough that the
synagogue scribes put into their present form and made the first
authorized copies of the works specified. The Boraitha, however, is not
clear, and may only express the opinion of a private individual in a
confused way. Simon the Just is said to have belonged to the remnants of
the synagogue. As Ezra is called “a ready scribe,” and his labors in
connection with the law were important, he may have organized a body of
literary men who should work in harmony, attending, among other things, to
the collection and preservation of the national literature; or they may
have been an association of patriotic men who voluntarily rallied round
the heads of the new state, to support them in their fundamental reforms.
The company of scribes mentioned in 1 Maccabees does not probably relate
to it.(42) A succession of priests and scribes, excited at first by the
reforming zeal of one whom later Jews looked upon as a second Moses,
labored in one department of literary work till the corporation ceased to
exist soon after, if not in the time of Simon, _i.e._, from about 445 B.C.
till about 200; for we identify the Simon celebrated in Sirach l. 1-26
with Simon II., son of the high-priest Onias II., B.C. 221-202; not with
Simon I., son and successor of the high-priest Onias I., B.C. 310-291.
Josephus’s opinion, indeed, is contrary; but leading Jewish scholars, such
as Zunz, Herzfeld, Krochmal, Derenbourg, Jost, and Bloch differ from him.
To the great synagogue must be referred the compilation of the second
canon, containing Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets. It was
not completed prior to 300 B.C., because the book of Jonah was not written
before. This work may be called a historical parable composed for a
didactic purpose, giving a milder, larger view of Jehovah’s favor than the
orthodox one, that excluded the Gentiles. Ruth, containing an idyllic
story with an unfinished genealogy attached, meant to glorify the house of
David, and presenting a kindred spirit towards a people uniformly hated,
was appended to Judges; but was subsequently transferred to the third
canon. It was written immediately after the return from the Babylonian
captivity; for the Chaldaising language points to this date,
notwithstanding the supposed archaisms discovered in it by some. In like
manner, the Lamentations, originally added to Jeremiah, were afterwards
put into the later or third canon. Joshua, which had been separated from
the five books of Moses with which it was closely joined at first, formed,
with the other historical portion (Judges, Samuel, Kings), the proper
continuation of Ezra’s canon. The prophets included the three greater and
twelve minor. With Isaiah’s authentic oracles were incorporated the last
twenty-seven chapters, belonging for the most part to an anonymous prophet
of the exile, besides several late pieces inserted in the first
thirty-nine chapters. Men of prophetic gifts wrote in the name of
distinguished prophets, and put their productions with those of the
latter, or adapted and wrote them over after their own fashion. The
fiftieth and fifty-first chapters of Jeremiah show such over-writing. To
Zechariah’s authentic oracles were attached chapters ix.-xiv., themselves
made up of two parts (ix.-xi., xii.-xiv.) belonging to different times and
authors prior to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Babylonians.
The character of the synagogue’s proceedings in regard to the books of
Scripture can only be deduced from the conduct of Ezra himself, as well as
the prevailing views and wants of the times. The scribes who began with
Ezra, seeing how he acted, would naturally follow his example, not
hesitating to revise the text _in substance_ as well as form.(43) They did
not refrain from changing what had been written, or from inserting fresh
matter. Some of their novelties can be discerned even in the Pentateuch.
Their chief work, however, related to the _form_ of the text. They put
into a proper form and state the text of the writings they studied,
perceiving less need for revising the _matter_. What they did was in good
faith, with honest intention.
The prophetic canon ended with Malachi’s oracles. And it was made sometime
after he prophesied, because the general consciousness that the function
ceased with him required a considerable period for its growth. The fact
that it included Jonah and Ruth brings the completion after 300 B.C., as
already stated. There are no definite allusions to it till the second
century B.C. Daniel speaks of a passage in Jeremiah being in “the books”
or “writings;”(44) and the prologue of Jesus Sirach presupposes its
formation. Such was the second canon, which had been made up gradually
(444-290 B.C.)
Another view of the collection in question has been taken by various
scholars. According to a passage in the second book of Maccabees, the
second canon originated with Nehemiah, who “gathered together the acts of
the kings and the prophets and (psalms) of David, and the epistles of the
kings concerning the holy gifts.”(45) These words are obscure. They occur
in a letter purporting to be sent by the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to the
Jews in Egypt, which contains apocryphal things; a letter which assigns to
Nehemiah the merit of various arrangements rather belonging to Ezra. It is
difficult to understand the meaning of “the epistles of the kings
concerning the offerings.” If they were the documents of heathen or
Persian kings favorable to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple,
would they not have been rejected from a collection of sacred books
belonging to the chosen people? They might perhaps have been adopted had
they been interwoven with the holy books themselves, like portions of Ezra
and Nehemiah; but they could not have formed a distinct part of the
national literature, because they were foreign and heathen. Again, “the
psalms of David” cannot have existed in the time of Nehemiah, if the
phrase includes the whole collection. It may perhaps refer to the first
three divisions of the book, as Herzfeld thinks; but these contain many
odes which are not David’s; while earlier ones belong to the last two
divisions of the Psalm-book. In like manner, “the prophets” could not all
have belonged to this canon; neither Malachi, who was later, nor Jonah.
The account will not bear strict examination, and must be pronounced
apocryphal. Nehemiah was a statesman, not a priest or scribe; a
politician, not a literary man. It is true that he may have had
assistants, or committed the work to competent hands; but this is
conjectural. The account of his supposed canon hardly commends itself by
inherent truthfulness or probability, though it is accepted by Ewald and
Bleek.
When the great synagogue ceased, there was an interval during which it is
not clear whether the sacred books were neglected, except by private
individuals; or whether they were studied, copied, and collected by a body
of scribes. Perhaps the scribes and elders of the Hasmonæan time were
active at intervals in this department. The institution of a senate by
Judas Maccabaeus is supposed to be favored by 2 Maccabees (chapter i.
10-ii. 18); but the passage furnishes poor evidence of the thing. Judas is
there made to write to Egypt in the year of the Seleucidae 188, though he
died thirty-six years before, _i.e._, 152. Other places have been added as
corroborative, viz., 2 Maccab. iv. 44, xi. 27; 1 Maccab. vii. 33. Some go
so far as to state that Jose ben Joeser was appointed its first president
at that time. The Midrash in Bereshith Rabba (§ 65) makes him one of the
sixty Hassidim who were treacherously murdered by Alcimus; but this is
neither in the first book of the Maccabees (chapter vii.) nor in
Josephus,(46) and must be pronounced conjectural. It is impossible to fix
the exact date of Jose ben Joeser in the Hasmonean period. Pirke Aboth
leaves it indefinite. Jonathan, Judas Maccabaeus’s successor, when writing
to the Lacedaemonians, speaks of the _gerusia_ or senate as well as _the
people_ of the Jews; whence we learn that the body existed as early as the
time of Judas.(47) Again, Demetrius writes to Simon, as also to _the
elders_ and _nation_ of the Jews.(48) After Jonathan and Simon, it may
have been suspended for a while, in consequence of the persecution and
anarchy prevailing in Judea; till the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem
succeeded it, under Hyrcanus I. Though the traces of a senate in the
Maccabaean epoch are slight, the Talmud countenances its existence.(49) We
believe that it was earlier than Judas Maccabaeus. Of its constitution
nothing is known; but it was probably aristocratic. The Hasmonean prince
would naturally exert a commanding influence over it. The great synagogue
had been a kind of democratic council, consisting of scribes, doctors or
teachers, and priests.(50) Like their predecessors of the great synagogue,
the Hasmonæan elders revised the text freely, putting into it explanatory
or corrective additions, which were not always improvements. The way in
which they used the book of Esther, employing it as a medium of Halachite
prescription, shows a treatment involving little idea of sacredness
attaching to the Hagiographa.
We are aware that the existence of this body is liable to doubt, and that
the expressions belonging to it in Jewish books, whether elders or
_gerusia_, have been applied to the great synagogue or to the Sanhedrim at
Jerusalem, or even to the elders of any little town or hamlet; but it is
difficult to explain all on that hypothesis, without attributing confusion
to the places where they occur. If the body in question be not allowed, an
interval of about sixty years elapsed between the great synagogue and the
Sanhedrim, during which the hagiographical writings were comparatively
neglected, though literary activity did not cease. No authoritative
association, at least, dealt with them. This is improbable. It is true
that we read of no distinguished teachers in the interval, except
Antigonus of Socho, disciple of Simon the Just; but the silence can hardly
weigh against a reasonable presumption. One thing is clear, viz., that
Antigonus did not reach down to the time of the first pair that presided
over the Sanhedrim.
The contents of the third canon, _i.e._, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, the formation of
which we assign to the Hasmonæan gerusia, were multifarious, differing
widely from one another in age, character, and value—poetical, prophetic,
didactic, historical. Such as seemed worthy of preservation, though they
had not been included in the second canon, were gathered together during
the space of an hundred and fifty years. The oldest part consisted of
psalms supposed to belong to David. The first psalm, which contains within
itself traces of late authorship, was prefixed as an introduction to the
whole collection now put into the third canon. Next to the Psalms were
Proverbs, Job, Canticles, which, though non-prophetic and probably
excluded on that account from the second canon, must have existed before
the exile. Enriched with the latest additions, they survived the national
disasters, and claimed a place next to the Psalms. They were but a portion
of the literature current in and after the 5th century B.C., as may be
inferred from the epilogue to Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Sirach. The
historical work compiled by the chronicle-writer was separated, Ezra being
put first as the most important part, and referring also to the church of
the 6th and 5th centuries whose history had not been written. The
Chronicles themselves were placed last, being considered of less value
than the first part, as they contained the summary of a period already
described, though with numerous adaptations to post-exile times. The
youngest portion consisted of the book of Daniel, not written till the
Maccabean period (between 170 and 160 B.C.);(51) and probably of several
Psalms (44, 60, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 89, 110, 118) which were inserted
in different places of the collection to make the whole number 150. These
late odes savor of the Maccabean time; and are fitly illustrated by the
history given in the first book of Maccabees. The list continued open;
dominated by no stringent principle of selection, and with a character
somewhat indefinite. It was called _c’tubim_, _i.e._, writings(52) a
general epithet suited to the contents.
Several books put into the third canon,—as Job, Proverbs, the greater
number of the Psalms, &c.,—existed when the second was made. But the
latter collection was pre-eminently _prophetic_; and it was that idea of
the origin and contents of the books in it which regulated its extent.
Bloch’s supposition that the parts of the third collection then existing
were not looked upon as holy, but merely as productions embodying human
wisdom, and were therefore excluded, is improbable. We do not think that
an alteration of opinion about them in the course of a century or more, by
which they became divine and holy instead of human, is a satisfactory
explanation. The Psalms of David and the book of Job must have been as
highly esteemed in the period of the great synagogue’s existence as they
were at a later time. Other considerations besides the divinity and
holiness of books contributed to their introduction into a canon.
Ecclesiastes was taken into the third collection because it was attributed
to Solomon. The Song of Songs was understood allegorically,—a fact which,
in addition to its supposed Solomonic authorship, determined its adoption.
And even after their canonical reception, whether by the great synagogue
or another body, the character of books was canvassed. It was so with
Ecclesiastes, in spite of the _supposed_ sanction it got from the great
synagogue contained in the epilogue, added, as some think, by that body to
attest the sacredness of the book.(53)
While the third canon was being made, the soferim, as the successors of
the prophets, were active as before; and though interpretation was their
chief duty, they must have revised and corrected the sacred books to some
extent. We need not hesitate to allow that they sometimes arranged parts,
and even added matter of their own. In the time of the canon’s entire
preparation, they and the priests, with writers and scholars generally,
redacted the national literature, excluding or sanctioning such portions
of it as they thought fit.
At this time appeared the present five-fold partition of the Psalms,
preceded as it had been by other divisions, the last of which was very
similar to the one that became final. Several inscriptions and historical
notices were prefixed. The inscriptions, however, belong to very different
times, their historical parts being usually older than the musical; and
date from the first collection to the period of the Hasmonean college,
when the final redaction of the entire Psalter took place. Those in the
first three books existed at the time when the latter were made up; those
in the last two were prefixed partly at the time when the collections
themselves were made, and partly in the Maccabean age. How often they are
out of harmony with the poems themselves, needs no remark. They are both
traditional and conjectural.
The earliest attestation of the third canon is that of the prologue to
Jesus Sirach (130 B.C.), where not only _the law and the prophets_ are
specified, but “the other books of the fathers,” or “the rest of the
books.”(54) No information is given as to its extent, or the particular
books included. They may have been for the most part the same as the
present ones. The passage does not show that the third list was closed.
The better writings of the fathers, such as tended to learning and wisdom,
are not excluded by the definite article. In like manner, neither Philo
nor the New Testament gives exact information as to the contents of the
division in question. Indeed, several books, Canticles, Esther,
Ecclesiastes, are unnoticed in the latter. The argument drawn from Matthew
xxiii. 35, that the Chronicles were then the last book of the canon, is
inconclusive; as the Zechariah there named was probably different from the
Zechariah in 2 Chronicles xxiv. None of these witnesses proves that the
third canon was finally closed.
A more definite testimony respecting the canon is given by Josephus
towards the end of the first century A.D. “For we have not an innumerable
multitude of books among us, ... but only twenty-two books, which contain
the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine.
And of them five belong to Moses.... But as to the time from the death of
Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who were
after Moses wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The
remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of
human life. It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very
particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the
former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession
of prophets since that time: and how firmly we have given credit to these
books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages
as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything
to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it
has become natural to all Jews immediately and from their very birth, to
esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them,
and if occasion be, willingly to die for them.”(55) This list agrees with
our present canon, showing that the Palestinian Jews were tolerably
unanimous as to the extent of the collection. The thirteen prophets
include Job; the four lyric and moral books are Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes and Canticles.
It is not likely that the Hasmonæan senate had a long existence. It was
replaced by the Sanhedrim, a more definite and state institution, intended
as a counter-balance to the influence of the Hasmonæan princes. The
notices of the latter reach no further back than Hyrcanus I., _i.e._,
about 135 B.C.(56) Josephus speaks of it under Hyrcanus II.(57) It cannot
be referred to an earlier period than Hyrcanus I. Frankel(58) indeed,
finds a notice of it in 2 Chronicles xix. 8, 11; but the account there is
indistinct, and refers to the great synagogue. The compiler having no
certain information about what was long past, transfers the origin of the
court he speaks of to Jehoshaphat, in order to glorify the house of David.
It is impossible to date the Sanhedrim, with Frankel, in the Grecian era,
in which case it must have been dissolved during the Maccabean
insurrection, and afterwards reconstructed; it was not constituted till
about 130 B.C. Whether it was modeled after the great synagogue or the
Hasmonæan senate, is uncertain. The idea of it may have been suggested by
the latter rather than the former, for its basis was aristocratic. The
Hasmonæan _gerusia_ must have been less formal and definite than the
Sanhedrim; though the latter arose before the family ceased to be in
power, and differed materially from its predecessor. It continued from 130
B.C. till A.D. 180, surviving the terrible disasters of the nation.(59)
The closing of the third canon cannot be assigned, with Bloch, to the
great synagogue. If the college ceased with or before Simon, _i.e._, about
200-192, and the work of Daniel did not appear till about 170 B.C., twenty
years at least intervened between the extinction of the great synagogue
and Daniel’s book. This holds good, whether we assume, with Krochmal, the
synagogue’s _redaction_ of the work,—more correctly the putting together
of the independent parts of which _it is said_ to be composed; or equally
so, if the taking of it into the canon as a book already completed, be
attributed to the same body. But we are unable to see that Krochmal’s
reasoning about the synagogue putting Daniel’s work together and one of
the members writing the book of Esther is probable.
In like manner, Maccabean psalms are adverse to the hypothesis that the
great synagogue completed the third canon. In consequence of these late
productions, it is impossible to assert that the men of the synagogue were
the redactors of the Psalter as it is. It is true that the collection was
made before the Chronicles and many other books of the hagiographical
canon; but the _complete_ Psalter did not appear till the Maccabean
period. The canon, however, was not considered to be finally closed in the
first century before and the next after Christ. There were doubts about
some portions. The book of Ezekiel gave offence, because some of its
statements seemed to contradict the law. Doubts about others were of a
more serious nature; about Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, Esther, and the
Proverbs. The first was impugned because it had contradictory passages and
a heretical tendency; the second, because of its worldly and sensual tone;
Esther for its want of religiousness; and Proverbs on account of
inconsistencies. This scepticism went far to procure the exclusion of the
suspected works from the canon, and their relegation to the class of the
_genuzim_.(60) But it did not prevail. Hananiah, son of Hezekiah, son of
Garon, about 32 B.C., is said to have reconciled the contradictions and
quieted the doubts.(61) But these traces of resistance to the fixity of
the canon were not the last. They reappeared about A.D. 65, as we learn
from the Talmud,(62) when the controversy turned mainly upon the
canonicity of Ecclesiastes, which the school of Shammai, who had the
majority, opposed; so that the book was probably excluded.(63) The
question emerged again at a later synod at Jabneh or Jamnia, when R.
Eleasar ben Asaria was chosen patriarch, and Gamaliel the second, deposed.
Here it was decided, not unanimously however, but by a majority of
Hillelites, that Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs “pollute the hands,”
_i.e._, belong properly to the Hagiographa.(64) This was about 90 A.D.(65)
Thus the question of the canonicity of certain books was discussed at two
synods.
Passages in the Talmud have been adduced to show that the Shammaite
objections to the canonicity of Ecclesiastes “were overruled by the
positive declaration from the 72 elders, _being a testimony anterior to
the Christian era_ that Coheleth is canonical; but they do not support the
opinion.”(66)
“The sages” referred to in the treatise Sabbat and elsewhere is a vague
expression, resting apparently on no historic tradition—a mere opinion of
comparatively late date. If it refer to the Jerusalem synod A.D. 65, the
Hillelites were simply outnumbered there by the Shammaites. The matter was
debated hastily, and determined for the time by a majority. But the synod
at Jamnia consisted of 72 persons; and a passage in the treatise Yadayim
refers to it.(67) The testimony of the 72 elders to whom R. Simeon ben
Asai here alludes, so far from belonging to an anti-christian era, belongs
to a date about 90 A.D. And the fact that the synod at Jamnia took up
again a question already debated at Jerusalem A.D. 65, proves that no
final settlement of the canon had taken place before. The canon was
virtually settled at Jamnia, where was confirmed what R. Akiba said of the
Canticles in his usual extravagant way: “No day in the whole history of
the world is of so much worth as the one in which the Song of Songs was
given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy; but the Song of Songs is
most holy.”(68) As the Hagiographa were not read in public, with the
exception of Esther, opinions of the Jewish rabbins might still differ
about Canticles and Ecclesiastes, even after the synod of Jamnia.
In opposition to these remarks, it is strenuously argued by Bloch that
neither the passage in the Mishnic treatise Yadayim, nor any other, refers
to the _canonical character_ of the books to which Jewish elders raised
several objections. But his arguments are more vehement than valid.
Anxious to assign the final settlement of the entire canon to an
authoritative body like the great synagogue, he affirms that all parties
were united in opinion about the time of Christ,—Assiim, Perushim, and
Zeddukim; Shammaites and Hillelites. But it requires more than his
ingenuity to explain away the meaning of Yadayim 3, 5, Adoyot v. 3, Sabbat
1. To what did such diversity of opinion relate, if not to the canonical
character of the books? A specific answer to the question is not given by
the learned writer,(69) who is too eager in his endeavor to attribute the
settlement of the third canon to the great synagogue, and to smooth away
all diversities of opinion about several books, after that time, as if
none could afterwards question the authoritative settlement by that body.
He will not even allow a wider canon to the Alexandrian Jews than that of
their Palestinian brethren, though he cannot but admit that the former
read and highly esteemed various apocryphal books because of their
_theocratic_ character. Surely the practical use of writings is an
evidence of their canonicity as strong as theoretical opinions.
The doubts about several books to which we have alluded, some of which
Hananiah is said to have resolved in his old age, imply a diligent study
of the national literature, if not a revision of the text; and the
Tannaite college at Jabneh must have cared for the same things, as it had
to deal with similar objections. After the last canon was made more than a
century anterior to the Christian era, the text was not considered
inviolate by the learned Jews; it received subsequent modifications and
interpolations. The process of redaction had not ceased before the time of
Christ. This was owing, among other causes, to the state of parties among
the Jews, as well as the intrusion of Greek literature and culture, whose
influence the Palestinian Jews themselves were not able altogether to
withstand. When Jeremiah accused the Scribes of falsifying the law by
their lying pen (viii. 8), it may be inferred that the same process took
place afterwards; that offensive things were removed, and alterations made
continuously down to the close of the canon, and even after. The
corrections consisted of additions and changes of letters, being indicated
in part by the most ancient versions and the traditions of the Jews
themselves who often knew what stood in the text at first, and why it was
altered. They are also indicated by the nature of the passage itself
viewed in the light of the state of religion at the time. Here, sober
judgment must guard against unnecessary conjectures. Some changes are
apparent, as the plural _oaks_ in Genesis xiii. 18, xiv. 13, xviii. 1,
Deuteronomy xi. 30, for the singular _oak_; and the plural _gods_ in
Exodus xxxii. 4, for the singular _god_. So 2 Sam. Vii. 23, (comp. 1
Chron. xvii. 21, and LXX);(70) and Deuteronomy xxxii. 8,(71) have been
altered. Popper and Geiger have probably assumed too much correction on
the part of the Scribes and others; though they have drawn attention to
the subject in the spirit of original criticism.
Jewish literature began to degenerate after the captivity, and it
continued to do so. It leaned upon the past more and more, having an
external and formal character with little of the living soul. The
independence of their religious literature disappeared with the national
independence of the Jews; and the genius of the people was too exclusive
to receive much expansion from the spirit of nations with whom they came
in contact. In such circumstances, amid the general consciousness of
present misfortune which the hope of a brighter future could not dispel,
and regretful retrospects of the past tinged with ideal splendor, the
exact time of drawing a line between books that might be included in the
third division of the canon must have been arbitrary. In the absence of a
normal principle to determine selection, the productions were arbitrarily
separated. Not that they were badly adjusted. On the contrary, the canon
as a whole was settled wisely. Yet the critical spirit of learned Jews in
the future could not be extinguished by anticipation. The canon was not
really settled for all time by a synodical gathering at Jamnia; for Sirach
was added to the Hagiographa by some rabbins about the beginning of the
4th century;(72) while Baruch circulated long in Hebrew, and was publicly
read on the day of atonement in the third century, according to the
Apostolic constitutions.(73) These two books were in high repute for a
considerable time, possessing a kind of canonical credit even among the
learned Jews of Palestine. Rab, Jochanan, Elasar, Rabba bar Mare,
occasionally refer to Sirach in the way in which the _c’tubim_ were
quoted: the writer of Daniel used Baruch; and the translator of Jeremiah
put it into Greek.
If it be asked on what principle books were admitted into the canon, a
single answer does not suffice. One and the same criterion did not
determine the process at all times. The leading principle with which the
first canon-makers set out was to collect all the documents of Hebrew
antiquity. This seems to have guided Ezra, if not the great synagogue
after him. The nation, early imbued with the theocratic spirit and
believing itself the chosen of God, was favorably inclined towards
documents in which that standpoint was assumed. The legal and ethical were
specially valued. The prophetic claimed a divine origin; the lyric or
poetic touched and elevated the ideal faculty on which religion acts. But
the leading principle which actuated Ezra and the great synagogue was
gradually modified, amid the growing compass of the national literature
and the consciousness that prophecy ceased with Malachi. When the latest
part of the canon had to be selected from a literature almost
contemporaneous, regard was had to such productions as resembled the old
in spirit. Orthodoxy of contents was the dominant criterion. But this was
a difficult thing, for various works really anonymous, though wearing the
garb of old names and histories, were in existence, so that the boundary
of the third part became uncertain and fluctuating.
The principle that actuated Ezra in making the first canon was a religious
and patriotic one. From his treatment of the oldest law books we infer
that he did not look upon them as inviolable. Venerable they were, and so
far sacred; but neither perfect nor complete for all time. In his view
they were not unconditionally authoritative. Doubtless they had a high
value as the productions of inspired lawgivers and men of a prophetic
spirit; but the redaction to which he submitted them shows no
superstitious reverence. With him _canonical_ and _holy_ were not
identical. Nor does the idea of an _immediate, divine_ authority appear to
have dominated the mind of the great synagogue in the selection of books.
Like Ezra, these scholars reverenced the productions of the prophets,
poets, and historians to whom their countrymen were indebted in the past
for religious or political progress; but they did not look upon them as
the offspring of unerring wisdom. How could they, while witnessing
repetitions and minor contradictions in the books collected?
The same remarks apply to the third canon. _Direct divinity_ of origin was
not the criterion which determined the reception of a book into it; but
the character and authorship of the book. Did it breathe the old spirit,
or proceed from one venerated for his wisdom? Was it like the old orthodox
productions; or did it bear the name of one renowned for his piety and
knowledge of divine things? The stamp of antiquity was necessary in a
certain sense; but the theocratic spirit was the leading consideration.
Ecclesiastes was admitted because it bore the name of Solomon; and
Daniel’s apocalyptic writings, because veiled under the name of an old
prophet. New psalms were taken in because of their association with much
older ones in the temple service. Yet the first book of Maccabees was
excluded, though written in Hebrew. It is still more remarkable that
Sirach was put among the external productions; but this was owing not so
much to its recent origin, for it is older than the book of Daniel, as to
its being an apparent echo of the Proverbs, and therefore unnecessary. Yet
it was long after assigned to the Hagiographa, and quoted as such by
several rabbis. Baruch was also left out, though it is as old as Daniel,
if not older; and professes to have been written by Jeremiah’s friend, in
Babylon.
That redactors dealt freely with the text of the second and third canons
especially, without a superstitious belief in its sacredness, is apparent
from the double recension which existed when the Egyptian Jews translated
the books into Greek. If the one that formed the basis of the Alexandrian
version be less correct than the Palestinian in the majority of instances,
it is still superior in many. The differences between them, often
remarkable, prove that those who had most to do with the books did not
guard them as they would have done had they thought them infallibly
inspired. Palestinians and Alexandrians subjected the text to redaction;
or had suffered it to fall into a state inconsistent with the assumption
of its supernatural origin. At a much later period, the Masoretes reduced
to one type all existing copies of their Scriptures, introducing an
uniformity imperatively demanded in their opinion by multiplied
discrepancies.
Whatever divine character the reflecting attributed to the canonical
books, it must have amounted to the same thing as that assigned to human
attributes and physical phenomena—a divinity resulting from the
over-leaping of second causes, in the absence of inductive philosophy.
Here the imperfection conditioned by the nature of the created cannot be
hid. Yet the books may be truly said to have contained the word of God.
Of the three divisions, _the Law_ or Pentateuch was most highly venerated
by the Jews. It was the first translated into Greek; and in Philo’s view
was inspired in a way peculiar to itself. _The Prophets_, or second
division, occupied a somewhat lower place in their estimation, but were
read in the public services as the law had been before. The _c’tubim_, or
third division, was not looked upon as equal to the Prophets in
importance: only the five Megiloth were publicly read. The three parts of
the collection present the three gradations of sanctity which the books
assumed successively in Israelite estimation. A certain reverence was
attached to all as soon as they were made canonical; but the reverence was
not of equal height, and the supposed authority was proportionally
varied.(74) The consciousness of prophetism being extinct soon after the
return from Babylon, was a genuine instinct. With the extinction of the
Jewish state the religious spirit almost evaporated. The idealism which
the old prophets proclaimed in contrast with the symbolic religion of the
state gave place to the forms and an attachment to the _written_ law.
Religion came to be a thing of the understanding, the subject of learned
treatment; and its essence was reduced to dogmas or precepts. Thus it
ceased to be a spiritual element in which the heart had free scope for its
highest aspirations. In addition to all, a foreign metaphysical theology,
the Persian doctrine of spirits, was introduced, which seemed to enlarge
the sphere of speculation, but really retarded the free exercise of the
mind. As the external side of religion had been previously directed to the
performance of good works, this externality was now determined by a
written law. Even the prophetism that appeared after the restoration was
little more than an echo of the past, falling in with an outward and
written legalism. The literature of the people deteriorated in quality,
and prophecy became _apocalypse_. In such circumstances the advent of a
new man was needed to restore the free life of religion in higher power.
Christ appeared in the fullness of time to do this effectually by
proclaiming the divine Fatherhood, and founding a worship _in spirit and
in truth_. Rising above the symbolic wrappings of the Mosaic religion, and
relying upon the native power of the spirit itself, he showed how man may
mount up to the throne of God, adoring the Supreme without the
intervention of temple, sacrifice, or ceremony.
When the three divisions were united, the ecclesiastical respect which had
gathered round the law and the prophets from ancient times began to be
transferred to the _c’tubim_. A belief in their sanctity increased apace
in the 1st century before the Christian era, so that _sacredness_ and
_canonicity_ were almost identical. The doubts of individuals, it is true,
were still expressed respecting certain books of the _c’tubim_, but they
had no perceptible effect upon the current opinion. The sanctity attaching
to the last division as well as the others did not permit the total
displacement of any part.
The passage in Josephus already quoted shows the state of the canon about
A.D. 100. According to it, he considered it to have been closed at the
time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, whom he identifies with the Ahasuerus of
Esther, 464-424 B.C. The books were divine, so that none dared to add to,
subtract from, or alter them. To him the canon was something belonging to
the venerable past, and inviolable. In other words, all the books were
peculiarly sacred. Although we call scarcely think this to be his private
opinion merely, it is probably expressed in exaggerated terms, and hardly
tallies with his use of the third Esdras in preference to the canonical
texts.(75) His authority, however, is small. Bloch’s estimate of it is too
high. It is utterly improbable that Josephus’s opinion was universally
held by the Jews in his day. His division of the books is peculiar: five
Mosaic, thirteen historical, four containing religious songs and rules of
life. It appears, indeed, that as he had the same twenty-two books we now
have, Ruth was still attached to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah; but
his credit is not on a par with that of a Jew who adhered to his
countrymen in the time of their calamity. He wrote for the Romans. One who
believed that Esther was the youngest book in the canon, who looked upon
Ecclesiastes as Solomon’s, and Daniel as an exile production, cannot be a
competent judge. In his time the historical sense of the book of Daniel
was misapprehended; for after the Grecian dynasty had fallen without the
fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy connected with it, the Roman empire
was put into its place. Hence various allusions in _The History of the
Jewish Wars_.(76) The passage in the _Antiquities_,(77) about Alexander
the Great and the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem is apocryphal. In any
case, Josephus does not furnish a genuine list of the canonical books any
more than Philo. The Pharisaic view of his time is undoubtedly given, that
the canon was then complete and sacred. The decision proceeded from that
part of the nation who ruled both over school and people, and regained
supremacy after the destruction of the temple; _i.e._, from the
Pharisee-sect to which Josephus belonged. It was a conclusion of orthodox
Judaism. With true critical instinct, Spinoza says that the canon was the
work of the Pharisees. The third collection was undoubtedly made under
their influence.
The origin of the _threefold_ division of the canon is not, as Oehler
supposes,(78) a reflection of the different stages of religious
development through which the nation passed, as if the foundation were the
Law, the ulterior tendency in its objective aspect the Prophets, and its
subjective aspect the Hagiographa. The books of Chronicles and others
refute this arbitrary conception. The triplicity lies in the manner in
which the books were collected. Men who belonged to different periods and
possessed different degrees of culture, worked successively in the
formation of the canon; which arose out of the circumstances of the times,
and the subjective ideas of those who made it.
The places of the separate books within the first division or _Torah_,
were determined by the succession of the historical events narrated. The
second division naturally begins with Moses’s successor, Joshua. Judges,
Samuel, and Kings follow according to the regular chronology. To the
former prophets, as Joshua—Kings were called, the latter were attached,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; succeeded by the twelve minor prophets,
arranged for the most part according to their times, though the length of
individual prophecies and similarity of contents also influenced their
position.
The arrangement of books in the third division depended on their age,
character, and authors. The Psalms were put first, because David was
supposed to be the author of many, and on account of their intrinsic value
in promoting the religious life of the people. After the Psalms came the
three poetical works attributed to Solomon, with the book of Job among
them,—Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes.
The book of Esther followed, since it was intended to further the
observance of the Purim feast; with the late book of Daniel. The position
of Daniel among the _c’tubim_ arises solely from the fact of its posterior
origin to the prophetic writings, not excepting the book of Jonah itself;
and the attempt to account for its place in the third division on the
ground of its predominant subjectivity is based on the unfounded
assumption that the objective state of religion is represented in the
second division and the subjective in the third. Had the book existed
before 400 B.C., it would doubtless have stood in the second division. But
the contents themselves demonstrate its date; contemporary history being
wrapped in a prophetic form. Having some affinity to Esther as regards
heathenism and Greek life, the book was put next to the latter. To Ezra
and Nehemiah, which were adopted before the other part of the Chronicle
book and separated from it, were added the so-called Chronicles. Such was
the original succession of the third division or _c’tubim_; but it did not
remain unaltered. For the use of the synagogue, the five Megiloth were put
together; so that Ruth, which was originally appended to Judges, and the
Lamentations affixed at first to Jeremiah’s prophecies, were taken out of
the second and put into the third canon. This caused a separation of
Canticles and Ecclesiastes. The new arrangement was made for liturgical
purposes.