Page images
PDF
EPUB

two books of Josephus.-Josephus does not name his twenty-two books; but this count of twenty-two books according to the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet became usual among the Jews; and we can obtain their names from other sources, of which two in particular deserve attention. Origen gives the list of the twentytwo books in a passage preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 25); and Jerome gives the names in the Preface to his Latin translation of the Bible, called the 'Prologus Galeatus.' We have thus no difficulty in defining the Canon of Josephus. There can be no question about his first division, the five books of Moses; and the four of his last division are no doubt the Psalms of David, and the three books ascribed to Solomon. The thirteen that remain in Jerome's are Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets in one book, Job, Daniel, Esdras, Esther, and Chronicles. We have no reason to imagine that the list of Josephus was different.

example teaches us the necessity of discriminating in other cases between proofs which merely establish that a writer was acquainted with disputed books, and proofs that he ascribed to them canonical authority.

17. Agreement as to the Canon between the Christians and the Jews of Palestine. -The agreement of the Canon of Melito with that of Josephus proves that late in the second century the Christians of Palestine were in substantial agreement with their Jewish neighbours as to the Old Testament Canon. This is only what might have been expected, since it is plain from the New Testament, that our Lord and His apostles had no difference with the Jews on this subject of the Canon. In every part of the New Testament the authority of the sacred books of the nation is assumed as undisputed; and in all controversy with the Jews these books are common ground. Our Lord appeals to these Scriptures as testifying of Himself (John v. 39). The Apostle Paul enumerates it as among the highest privileges of the Jewish nation that to them had been committed the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2). No hint is given that they had been unfaithful to their trust by adding to or subtracting from the sacred deposit.

16. The theory and the practice of Josephus. It appears from the extract just quoted, that besides the twenty-two books which Josephus accounted sacred, he knew of other Jewish books, composed If it were only proposed to trace the later than the time of Artaxerxes, which history of the Hebrew Bible, the investihe did not hold in the same considera- gation might stop at this point, for the tion. It deserves to be mentioned that Jews to this day count no books as if we had not this explicit statement of sacred but those which were reverenced the difference which Josephus put be- in the time of Josephus. A few of the tween the two classes of books, and had books which we know as Apocrypha been left to infer his theory from his prac- appear to have been originally written tice, we might have come to a different in Hebrew, but they have not been conclusion. In his account (Antt. xi. preserved in that language, nor do they 1-5) of the return of the Jews from the appear ever to have been set, by those captivity, he chiefly follows, not the who used it, on a level with their ancient canonical Book of Ezra, but the apo- sacred books. The claims of the books cryphal First Book of Esdras, telling the called Apocrypha depend altogether on story peculiar to that book, of the contest the place which these books found in between the three young men who were the Greek Bible; and therefore it has members of King Darius's guard. In become necessary to speak of the history telling the story of Haman and Esther of that translation, and of the authority (Antt. xi. 6), he gives at length a letter attributed to it in the Christian Church. bearing the name of Artaxerxes, taken from the apocryphal additions to the Book of Esther. And in his account of Judas Maccabæus (Antt. xii. xiii.) he employs the First Book of the Maccabees. This

18. Origin of the Septuagint.-All authorities agree in naming Alexandria as the birthplace of the Greek Bible. Mention has already been made of the multitudes of Jews who resided outside the limits of

the Holy Land, and who came to be technically known as "the Dispersion" (diaσTopá: see John vii. 35; James i. 1). This "Dispersion" had centres in Babylonia, in Syria, in Egypt, and with the last of these we are here concerned. Of all the Jewish foreign settlements it was the greatest, possibly in numbers, certainly in influence. The Jews had received every encouragement to settle in Alexandria, and had largely availed themselves of it. Philo tells that in his time the Jewish inhabitants of the city numbered a million, and that they occupied almost exclusively two of the five districts into which the city was divided, and were not altogether absent from the remaining districts. The quarter they occupied was close to the river, much of the commerce along which was in their hands. The majority of them used Greek as the language of their daily life, and read their sacred books in a Greek translation.

to Jerusalem with gifts of gold, silver, and precious stones, on quite as liberal a scale, praying the high priest to send him seventy-two elders, six out of each tribe, who should make for him a faithful translation of the Jewish laws. The letter relates that this request was complied with. It gives the names of the elders sent; it tells the splendid entertainment provided for them in Egypt, and the magnificent fees with which they were rewarded on the conclusion of their work.1

20. Later improvements on that story. The story as originally told went no further than this; but an improvement subsequently made to it obtained general credence. It was said that the king, wishing to test the fidelity of the seventytwo interpreters, locked them up in separate cells; and that afterwards when they came to compare the translations which each had made separately, they were found to agree not only in sense, 19. The story told by the so-called Aris- but word for word. This story was teas.-Concerning the origin of this ver- known to Philo (De Vit. Mos. ii.). It sion, a marvellous tale was told, which was believed by Irenæus and several came to be generally accepted. Its other Fathers of the Church. Justin earliest form is to be found in a letter Martyr had even been shewn at Alexpurporting to be written by one Aristeas, andria the cells in which the work had an officer in the court of King Ptolemy been done. Philadelphus, the second, and perhaps the most distinguished of the Ptolemies, who reigned B.C. 284-246. The letter relates that this king, having founded the celebrated library at Alexandria, felt that his collection would be incomplete if it did not include the laws of the Jews, of the fame of which he had heard from his librarian. And it goes on to tell, how the king acquired the desired volume at a cost unparalleled in the history of literary enterprise. We are told that, in order to conciliate the favour of the Jews for the request he was about to make, the king began by proclaiming the liberty of every Jewish captive in his dominions, paying the owners 20 drachmae for each slave. The number of captives had been calculated at over 100,000, and the estimated cost of redemption was over 400 talents; but as the king in his liberality included even the sucking children, paying for them at the rate of adults, the sum actually spent swelled to 660 talents. He then sent an embassy

21. Fictitious character of the whole story.-When in a more critical age the story came to be scrutinised, it was found that in its earliest form it had not contained any mention of the seventy cells, and therefore that part of the story was cleared away as a later embellishment.2 Next it was seen that the story, even as told by Aristeas, bears the marks of being enriched with much fictitious ornamentation-the extraordinary profusion of treasure, for example, lavished on the accomplishment of the work being unlike anything we read of in real history, but natural enough in a romance, the author of which can, at no cost to himself, endow his characters with boundless riches.

1 The letter of Aristeas is printed by Hody, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus.

2 "Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandria mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarunt, cum Aristeas ejusdem Ptolemæi &Teраoπioтhs, et multo post tempore Josephus nihil tale retulerint." (Hieron. Praf. in Pent.)

22. More probable account of the origin of the Septuagint.-Finally, the authority for the story being found to be entirely untrustworthy, modern criticism rejects it altogether, and regards the Greek Bible as having not originated in any royal command, but as having sprung up to supply the wants of the many thousands of Jews who resided permanently at a distance from the land of their fathers, and who habitually used Greek as the language of their daily life. These foreign Jews in wealth and numbers surpassed the parent stock; but they all looked to Jerusalem as their religious centre. We know, from Acts ii. 5-11, what multitudes of them collected to celebrate the feasts at Jerusalem, and, from Acts vi. 9, that there were in Jerusalem synagogues specially frequented by foreign Jews. The need for these special places for religious instruction probably arose from the employment in them of the Greek language. The reading of the books of Moses was everywhere part of the synagogue service on every Sabbath day (Acts xv. 21), and among those who were known as Hellenists (Acts vi. 1) it was only in the Greek language that these books could be read with advantage. At least, if the Hebrew text was read aloud, it needed to be followed by an interpretation; and in any comments that might be made on what had been read, the Greek language would in these synagogues be employed. Thus, in the account (Acts xiii.) of St. Paul's visit to the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, we are not told in what language took place the reading of the law and the prophets, related v. 15; but we find that in Paul's immediately following address to the assembled congregation it is from the Greek translation that he quotes the Old Thus, then, the Greek translation being required for the religious wants of the dispersed Jews themselves, it is irrational to suppose that it took its origin from a desire to satisfy heathen curiosity, however true it be that in point of fact the Greek Bible

1 The quotation "Behold, ye despisers," &c. (v. 41), is from the Greek, not the Hebrew, of Hab. i. 5; and in the "sure mercies" of David (v. 34) the words of the LXX. translation of Isaiah lv. 3 are also followed.

proved to be a principal agent in the conversion of the heathen world.

23. Diversities of Jewish opinion as to the merits of the work.-Philo (De Vit. Mos. ii.) tells that the Jews of Alexandria held an annual feast in commemoration of the Greek translation, when they made a pilgrimage to the island of Pharos, where, according to tradition, the cells for the seventy interpreters had been built. On the other hand, we find from Rabbinical authorities that there were at a somewhat later time in Palestine stiff maintainers of Jewish exclusiveness, who held in abomination the whole conception of a Greek version. They said that it had been forbidden to write the law on the skin of an unclean beast: surely it was ten times forbidden to pollute it by the language of the heathen. Consequently that which was in Alexandria a day of feasting was turned by them into one of mourning; and they commemorated by a fast what they regarded as a day of apostasy, like that when the people danced round the calf which Aaron had made. Little did these short-sighted rigorists consider that it was owing to this book, the making of which they deplored, that their brethren who lived among the heathen were preserved from learning any of their ways; and, even though they might lose the use of their national language, held fast to their national religion as a thing with which none of Jewish race could ever bear to part.

24. Literary activity of Hellenistic Jews. -We learn, however, that in judging of Jewish opinion we must take separate account of Palestine and Alexandria, as distinct centres of religious thought, which conceivably might develop itself differently in the two places. The Alexandrine Jews might well regard themselves as entitled to hold an opinion of their own. Alexandria was one of the foremost cities of the world, as a centre both of commerce and of literature. Its inhabitants boasted that theirs had been a great city when Rome was as yet but a village, and that even then Rome must starve if it did not receive supplies of corn from Egypt. The Jews held a leading place in the commerce of the city, and many of them were deeply

tinctured with Hellenic culture. They were forced, in a way that Palestinian Jews were not, to take account of Grecian speculative systems, and were naturally desirous to present their religion in the form most likely to attract a philosophic inquirer, and were solicitous to smooth away difficulties which might be expected to repel him. Some of the Greek-speaking Jews were active in literary composition. Eusebius, in his Praeparatio Evangelica (Book ix.), gives extracts from several writers who had arrayed the facts of the Old Testament history in a Grecian garb. One writer named Ezekiel had turned the history of the Exodus into a drama, in which Moses and Zipporah and Raguel hold dialogues in iambic verse; and even the scene at the burning bush, in which God Himself is a speaker, is thrown into like form. Another writer, Theodotus, told in hexameters the story of the rape of Dinah and the destruction of Shechem (Ev. Praep. ix. 22). Another, who in distinction from his betterknown namesake is called the elder Philo, wrote a description of Jerusalem, also in hexameters. Others, as Demetrius and Eupolemus, retold in prose the Scripture narrative of the early history of the Jewish nation. Some of these are treated by Josephus and by Eusebius as if they were heathen writers bearing independent testimony to the truth of the Old Testament narratives; but an examination of the extracts which have been preserved proves decisively that the writers in question obtained their knowledge solely from the Old Testament. It is reasonable to think that those who exhibited so intimate an acquaintance with that volume were probably Jews. If any of them were heathen, we have indirect evidence how successful Jews had been in commending their literature to Greek-speaking people.

25. Additions made by them to the Canonical books. But Jewish literary activity did not limit itself to the reproduction or recasting of the sacred histories. It displayed itself also in the composition of narratives, some entirely fictitious, such as probably the story of Susanna; others, such as the books of the Maccabees, recording the history of

times later than those treated of in the books of the Palestinian canon. It is intelligible that many who might set little value on works which merely told over again with less authority the story told in the canonical books might be ready to give a different reception to writings which appeared really to supplement the Scripture history, and might regard such works as at least edifying for private reading, even though not possessed of canonical authority. Thus, for example, in Scotland, where in modern times there has been no disposition to receive apocryphal writings, the works of Josephus have been admitted to rank as edifying Sunday reading. Certain it is that several works, to which there was nothing corresponding in the Hebrew Bible, came to be joined in the current use of Greek-speaking people with the translations of the canonical books.

§ IV. ALEXANDRIAN CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

26. Generally coincident with Palestinian.-It has been already said that we are not at liberty to assume that Alexandrian opinion was always identical with Palestinian, and therefore that the question what value was attached to the later books at Alexandria is not decisively settled by our knowledge that they were not regarded as canonical in Palestine. But we hear nowhere of any difference between native and foreign Jews on the subject of the Canon; and as far as the Apocrypha is concerned, no difference is exhibited in our great source of information as to Alexandrian religious thought; namely, the writings of the great Alexandrian Jew, Philo.

27. Philo: prominence given by him to the Pentateuch.-Indeed, on comparing Philo's Scripture quotations with those of the New Testament writers, we are conscious of one difference. The New Testament quotations range freely through all the books of the Old, and seem to treat all as of like authority. The Law and the Prophets alike furnished materials for synagogue reading (Acts xiii. 15; Luke iv. 17), and even the title "the Law" ceases to be ex

clusively given to the books of Moses. St. John in his Gospel three times cites the Psalms as "the Law" (x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25), and St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 21) gives as from the Law a quotation from the prophet Isaiah. In the writings of Philo, on the contrary, the books of Moses have such prominence that it requires attentive examination to discover what value he set on other Old Testament books. The subjects of the great majority of Philo's treatises are expositions of parts of the Mosaic writings: not one of his treatises formally professes to explain any other part of Scripture. And, again, there are in Philo's writings about fifty quotations from the Pentateuch for one from any other part of the Old Testament. We are thus led to put to ourselves the question, Can it be that Philo and the Alexandrian Jews did not include in their Canon any books but those of the Pentateuch; and that thus the books of the Apocrypha found it easy to establish themselves, not indeed on a level with the Pentateuch, but on a level with other Old Testament books? The result, however, of careful examination is to answer this question in the negative, by proving that Philo did attribute inspiration to the later Old Testament books, and that he did not set the Apocrypha on a level with even these latter books.

28. According to the original story, the Seventy Interpreters translated the Pentateuch only. There can be no doubt, however, of the special authority attributed in Egypt to the Pentateuch. On turning back to the letter of Aristeas already referred to, it is proved that the original story of the Seventy Interpreters limited their work to the translation of the Pentateuch. It is only of the Mosaic laws that the fame is described as having reached the Egyptian king. It is only the Book of the Law that is said to have been sent from Jerusalem, and this only is mentioned through the whole story. Indeed, the length of time which the translation is said to have taken, viz. 70 days, suits well enough for the work of rendering the Pentateuch, but would be altogether inadequate for that of translating the whole Old Testament. Josephus, who tells the

story after Aristeas, not only like him makes mention only of the Law as having been sent to the King of Egypt, but in the preface to his Antiquities expressly says that no other part of the Scripture had been so sent. But setting aside the story of the Seventy Interpreters, internal evidence proves that the Pentateuch was translated by different hands from those that worked on the other books. Not only is the style of the translation different, the rendering of the Pentateuch being the more close and literal, but many proper names (for example, Philistines, Mesopotamia, Idumæa) are differently rendered in the earlier and the later books; and so are several technical words, such as Urim and Thummim. It is quite true that the Christian Fathers generally lost sight of this distinction, and commonly thought of the Greek Old Testament which they used, as a work translated all at one time, and that they ascribed the origin of the entire collection to the seventy elders who, according to the current story, had been sent to the King of Egypt. But the earlier version of the story only referred to the Pentateuch, and, as has been already said, the different books are proved by internal evidence to have been translated at different dates.

29. The Pentateuch probably came into synagogue use before the other Old Testament books.-That this should be so is quite intelligible if we believe, as there is every reason to do, that the Greek translation took its origin in the needs of the synagogue worship in places where Jews habitually spoke Greek. There is a current story that until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes only sections from the Law were read in their synagogue worship, but that under his tyranny the public reading of the Law being forbidden, the rulers of the synagogue substituted for use in their worship a selection of lessons from the Prophets. When on the death of Antiochus the reading of the Law was restored, the reading of the Prophets was still continued. This story, however, rests on no good authority;1 and the true date of the introduction into the

The earliest authority seems to be Elias Levita, who lived at the end of the fifteenth

century.

« PreviousContinue »