Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/15

Rh lids restricted collection is owiug to the fact that, when the Samaritans separated from the Jews and began their wor ship on Gerizim, no more than the Mosaic writings had been invested by Ezra with canonical dignity. The hostile feeling between the rivals hindered the reception of books subsequently canonized. The idea of their having the oldest and most sacred part in its entirety satisfied their spiritual wants. Some have thought that the Sadducees, who already existed as a party before the Maccabean period, agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Penta teuch ; yet this is doubtful. It is true that the Samaritans themselves say so; and that some of the church fathers, Origen, Jerome, and others agree ; but little reliance can be put on the statement. The latter, perhaps, confounded the Samaritans and Sadducees. It is also noteworthy that Christ, in refuting the Sadducees, appeals to the Penta teuch alone ; but the conclusion that he did so because of their admitting no more than that portion does not follow The Alexandrian canon differed from the Palestinian. The Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint contains some later productions which the Palestinian Jews did not adopt, not only from their aversion to Greek litera ture generally, but also from the recent origin of the books, and perhaps their want of prophetic sanction. The closing line of the third part in the Alexandrian canon was more or less fluctuating capable of admitting recent writings ap pearing under the garb of old names and histories, or em bracing religious subjects ; while the Palestinian collection was pretty well determined, and all but finally settled. The judgment of the Alexandrians was freer than that of their brethren in the mother country. They had even separated in a measure from the latter, by erecting a temple at Leontopolis ; and their enlargement of the canon was another step of divergence. The influence of Greek learn ing and philosophy led to a more liberal treatment of Jewish books. Nor had they the criterion of language for the separation of canonical and uncanonical ; both classes were before them in the same tongue. The enlarged canon was not formally sanctioned ; it had not the approval of the Sanhedrim ; yet it was to the Alexandrians what the Palestinian one was to the Palestinians. If Jews who were not well acquainted with Hebrew used the apocryphal and canonical books alike, it was a matter of feeling and cus tom ; and if those who knew the old language better ad hered to the canonical one more closely, it was a matter of tradition and language. The former set little value on the prevalent consciousness of the race that the spirit of prophecy was extinct; their view of the Spirit s operation was larger. The latter clung to the past with all the more tenacity that the old life of the nation had degenerated. The identity of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons must be abandoned. It is said, indeed, that Philo neither mentions nor quotes the Greek additions ; but neither does he quote several canonical books. According to Eichhorn, no fewer than eight of the latter are unnoticed by him. Besides, he had peculiar views of inspiration, and quoted loosely from memory. Believing as he did in the inspira tion of the Greek version as a whole, it is difficult to think that he made a distinction between the differeat parts of it. The argument for the identity of the two canons deduced from 4 Esdras xiv. 44, etc., as if the twenty-four open books were distinguished from the other writings dictated to Ezra, is of no force, both because the reading is uncertain and, even if seventy be distinguished from twenty-four in the passage, verisimilitude required that an Egyptian Jew him self must make Ezra conform to the old Palestinian canon. It is also alleged that the grandson of Jesus Sirach, who translated his grandfather s work during his abode in Egypt, knew no difference between the Hebrew and Greek canon, though he speaks of the Greek version ; he speaks as a Palestinian, without having occasion to allude to the difference between the canonical books of the Palestinian and Egyptian Jews. The latter may have reckoned the apocryphal writings in the third division ; and therefore the translator of Jesus Sirach could recognize them in the ordinary classification. The mention of three classes is not opposed to their presence in the third. The general use of an enlarged canon in Egypt cannot be denied, though it was somewhat loose, was not regarded as a completed collection, and wanted express rabbinical sanction. The very way in which apocryphal are inserted among canonical books in the Alexandrian canon, shows the equal rank assigned to both. Esdras first and second succeed the Chronicles ; Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and Esther ; the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach follow Can ticles ; Baruch succeeds Jeremiah ; Daniel is followed by Susanna and other productions of the same class ; and the whole closes with the three books of Maccabees. Such is the order in the Vatican MS. The threefold division of the canon, indicating three stages in its formation, has continued. Josephus, indeed, gives another, based on the nature of the separate books, not on MSS. We learn nothing from him of its his tory, which is somewhat remarkable, considering that he did not live two centuries after the last work had been added. The account of the canon s final arrangement was unknown to him. The number of the books was variously estimated. Josephus gives twenty-two, which was the usual number among Christian writers in the 2d, 3d, and 4th cen turies, having been derived from the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Origen, Jerome, and others have it. It con tinued longest among the teachers of the Greek Church, and is even in Nicephorus s r.tichometry. The enumeration in question has Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. InEpiphanius the numbertwenty-sevenisfound, made by taking the alphabet enlarged with the five final letters, and dividing Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books each. The Talmud has twenty-four, which originated in the Greek alphabet, and probably proceeded from Alex andria. After the Pentateuch and the former prophets, which are in the usual order, it gives Jeremiah as the first of the later, succeeded by Ezekiel and Isaiah with the twelve minor prophets. The Talmud knows no other rea son for such an order than that it was made according to the contents of the prophetic books, not according to the times of the writers. This solution is unsatisfactory. It is more probable that chronology had to do with the arrange ment. The Talmudic order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamenta tions, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. Here Ruth pre cedes the Psalter, coming as near the former prophets as possible ; for it properly belongs to them, the contents associating it with the Judges time. The Talmudic order is that usually adopted in German MSS. The Masoretic arrangement differs from the Talmudic in putting Isaiah before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The Hagio grapha are Psalms, Proverbs, Job. Canticles, Ruth, Lamen tations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra (with Nehemiah), Chronicles. MSS. often differ arbitrarily, because tran scribers did not consider themselves bound to any one arrangement. According to some, a very old testimony to 