anywhere enumerate these books, and nothing certain on the subject can be collected from their citations; we must have recourse to the opinion of the Jews of that age, and conclude those books to have been approved of by Jesus and his Apostles, to which the Jews of that age attributed divine authority. This course is so much the more safe, as we are certain that Jesus and his Apostles never upbraided the Jews with the admission of any apocryphal books.——But neither Josephus nor Philo, who are the only Jewish writers of that period, have framed a catalogue of their sacred books, nor can any thing certain be inferred from their quotations. [a] We must, therefore, adopt some other method of ascertaining the Jewish canon in the age of Christ and his Apostles.

[4) This assertion should be limited. In the German, Jahn says, We find one passage in Josephus which affords some light on the subject, which will be presently discussed.' This is Cont. Apion. Lib. I. c. 8. See 28. vers. fin. Tr.]

Since therefore no writer of that time has enumerated the sacred books, we must inquire into the opinions of the Jews of those ages which were nearest to it. These unanimously testify that all the books which we have at present in Hebrew, are canonical. These testimonies shall now be recited in retrograde order.—1) In the Talmud, which was commenced at the end of the 2nd century, and completed towards the close of the 5th, all these books are placed, without any hesitation, in the canon of the Jews.- -2) Testimony to the same effect is given by Jerome, at the end of the 4th century, in his Prolog. Galeat. Ep. ad Paulinum, and also by the fact that he translated them, as such, from the Hebrew into Latin.-3) Epiphanius, in the 4th century, adduces the same canon, as that of the Nazarenes, who were Hebrew Christians. Haeres. xxix. Opp. Tom. I. p. 122. ss.—4) Origen testifies that this was the canon of the Jews, Exp. in Ps. I. Opp. Tom. II. p. 529, and in Eusebius Hist. Ecc. L. VI. c. 25. In the latter place the omission of the 12 prophets is merely an error of the transcriber: for Origen not only frequently cites those books, but also copied them entire into his Hexapla from the canon of the Jews.—5) Melito of Sardis, who had learned the ca

non of the Jews while in the east, about A. D. 172, gives to Onesimus a list (which Eusebins has preserved,) of the same books as canonical, with the exception of the book of Esther. This book is also passed over in silence, or in express words excluded from the canon, by several other fathers.[a] This circumstance has given occasion to some difference of opinion among the learned: whether the omission in Melito's catalogue arose from the negligence of some transcriber overlooking Esp after Esdpas, or whether Esther and Nehemiah were both included under the name of Ezra, or the book were designedly passed over. 6) Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the authors of the Peshito or ancient Syriac version, and the Alexandrine interpreters, translated all these books as belonging to the Jewish canon. Aquila and the Alexandrine interpreters are witnesses of great importance.

From the time of Aquila to that of the last of the Apostles not more than 20 or 30 years had intervened; from that of Melito 80 or 100; from that of Origen 110 or 130. In this space of time the Jews could not have changed their canon without the knowledge of Melito, and especially of Origen, who was an acute inquirer and had travelled through many parts of the world. Besides, the Jews of this period were so attached to their sacred books, that they would have abhorred all idea of change. Comp. JOSEPHUS Contr. Apion. L. I. c. viii. Hence we may safely conclude, that the Jews in the time of Christ and his Apostles had no other canon than the present, and consequently that this was approved by Jesus and his Apostles.[b]

These books, if all, as well those of Moses as the rest, are counted singly, amount in number to 39. Yet Josephus, who (Cont. Apion. L. I, c. viii.) divides them into three classes, numbers only 22, namely, the 5 books of Moses, 13 prophets, and 4 other books. To account for this, it must be observed, that the Jews accommodated the number of their sacred books, as the Greeks did that of the parts of the Iliad and Odyssey, to the number of their letters, and hence, as Origen and Jerome testify, frequently counted two or more books as one, as for instance the books of Judges and Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Jeremiah and Lainentations, Ezra and Nehemiah, and the 12 minor prophets. According to this method of computation, used by the Jews, Josephus reckoned the sacred books in the following order: THE FIVE BOOKS

OF MOSES: 1. Genesis, 2. Exodus, 3. Leviticus, 4. Numbers, 5. Deuteronomy. THE THIRTEEN PROPHETS: 1. Joshua, 2. the books of Judges and Ruth, 3. the books of Samuel, 4. the books of Kings, 5. the books of Chronicles, 6. Ezra and Nehemiah, 7. Esther, 8. Isaiah, 9. Jeremiah and Lamentations, 10. Ezekiel, 11. Daniel, 12. The twelve minor prophets, 13. Job: THE FOUR OTHER BOOKS ; 1. Psalms 2. Proverbs, 3. Ecclesiastes, 4. Canticles. [c] Jerome, (in Prolog. Galeat.) reduces the books to the same number, but remarks that some of the Jews separated Ruth from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah, thus making the number of books 24, plainly with reference to the number of letters in the Greek alphabet. With these the authors of the Talmud agree; and this had led some Jews, from the manner of writing the word in in an abridged form thus, ',', to force out the inference that in Hebrew there are three Yods, in order that the number of the Hebrew letters might equal that of the Greek.

[The Jews attribute the establishment of the Canon to what they call the Great Synagogue, which during more than two hundred years, from Zerubbabel down to Simon the Just, was composed of the prophets and the most eminent men of the nation. But the whole story respecting this Synagogue, which first occurs in the Talmud, (AURIVILLII Dissert. p. 139 -160, de Synagoga vulgo magna dicta,) is utterly unworthy of credit. It is evidently a fictitious representation of the historic truth. that the men who are said to have constituted the Synagogue, were chiefly instrumental in the new regulation of the state, and in the constitution of the Jewish church, and consequently in the collecting and fixing the holy books upon which this constitution was established. It is in itself very probable, that the Jews on their return from exile should think it incumbent on them to show their respect for their sacred books, the promises of which had just been iulfilled, and on the future promises of which all their hopes were founded, by forming collections of them. It is also probable that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and other learned and eminent men, especially Ezra, endeavoured to render such a collection as complete as possible, and that the interest taken by the prophets in the formation of the collection gave it the stamp of divine authority. Without doubt correct copies of this collection were laid up in the temple, as Moses had already placed his laws in the sanctuary, and afterwards the agreement with Saul at his election to the kingdom had been preserved in the same manner. The prophet Malachi, and the pious governor Nehemiah, the latter of whom according to II. Mac. ii. 13, formed, or rather

completed, the sacred collection, incorporated into it the later works and their own writings, and as no prophet subsequently arose, the collection was, properly speaking, finished. The Jews, however, fix the date of its final completion under Simon the Just, whom they place in the early part of the third century before Christ. This much is certain, that there is no sign of any later establishment of the Canon. The genealogy of David's posterity, 1. Chron. iii. 17-24, which was probably completed by Simon the Just, reaches down to the end of the fourth century before Christ. In the third century before Christ the books were gradually translated into Greek. Shortly after this the collection seems to have been completed a considerable time, since it is not only mentioned as generally known and divided into three parts, by the translator of the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, in the year 131 before Christ, but is also represented as old by the Son of Sirach himself, c. xlix., between 130 and 180 before Christ. Besides, it is not evident why the elegant and useful moral treatise of Jesus the Son of Sirach should not have been received among the holy books, if the number of those books had not been already long determined.]

[a) See Part II 70. Tr.]

[b) The testimony of the Christian church to the Canon of the Old Testament is given by ORIGEN Cont. Cels. III. 45. Opp. Tom. I. p. 476. and in EUSEBIUS. Ecc. Hist. VI. 25. by the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 360-364) MANSI Concil. Tom. II. p. 574. &c. &c. See these and other testimonies in full in DE WETTE Einleitung ins Alt. Test. & 25, 26, 27. S. 41-53. Tr.]

[c) See EICHHORN's Repert. für Bibl. und Morgenl. Lit. V. Th. S. 260-271. Tr.]

§ 29. Of the Second Canon.

The books mentioned in the preceding section were undoubtedly included in the canon of the Jews in the age of Christ, and approved by him, and delivered by his apostles to the churches which they established. Whether in the Alexandrine version which the apostles recommended to the churches, there were not also other books equally recommended by them as of divine authority is a difficult question, which was debated even in the ancient church. For this reason we place such books in the SECOND CANON. They are as follows: 1. Baruch; 2. The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus; 3. The Wisdom of Solomon; 4. The book of Tobit; 5. Judith; 6. The first and second books of Maccabees; 7. The addi

tions to the book of Esther, from c. x. 4. to c. xvi. 24;* 8. The Song of the three Children, Dan. iii. 24-90;† 9. The History of Susannah, Dan. xiii. ;† 10. The History of Bel and the dragon, Dan. xiv.tThe arguments by which some have attempted to show that the Hellenistic Jews attribute to these books a divine authority, are of no force. Comp. Germ. Introd. P. I. §. 29. pp. 133. ss.[a] Of greater weight is 1) the testimony of Jerome, who (Praef. in Tobit. et Judith.) declares, that the Hebrews read them among the hagiographa, i. e. among the sacred writings: to the same purpose 2) Origen (Ep. ad Afric.) attests, that the Jews placed the book of Tobit neither in the canon, nor yet among the Apocrypha. So also 3) Junilius (De Partit. Divin. Leg. c. 3.) says, that these books were received by the Jews with some doubt: 4) the Apostolical Constitutions allege that the Jews read the book of Baruch in their synagogues on the day of expiation: 5) the Talmudists, and long before them the writers of the New Testament used them, although they never cite them by name: 6) Josephus (Cont. Ap. L. I. § 8.) says, that these books were not thought worthy of as much credit as the others, because the succession of prophets, or of inspired writers, could not be traced with certainty as low as the time of their composition. 7) Lastly, all things considered, it seems probable that these books were recommended to the churches by the Apostles together with the others as they were found in the Alexandrine version; for unless that had been the case, it would be difficult to conceive how so many Christian churches could have received them from the Jews without suspicion. Nevertheless, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, the anonymous framer of the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, Hilary, Ruffin, and Jerome, exclude these books from the canon. But when some persons carrying their opposition to a greater length, disapproved of their being read in churches, the Council of Hippo in 393, (AUGUSTIN. de Doct. Christ. L. II. c. 8.) and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, received these books into the canon, with the proviso, that the transmarine churches should be consulted;

* [Forming in the English translation a separate book in the Apocrypha, under the title of "The rest of the book of Esther, which is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee." Tr.]

[Forming in the English translation a separate book in the Apocrypha. Tr.]