tongues. In Hebrew it is

in Greek, A‹¤ýêŋ; and

in Latin, Testamentum. Although the etymological construction of these terms is not exactly identical, still, in fact, their accepted sense in this predication is the same, that of a pact, treaty or covenant; and they designate the written instruments of God's solemn covenant with mankind.

A fundamental variation took place in God's dealings with his creature in the mission of the Messiah, and, as the Greek language became at that time the principle medium of religious thought, the changed and better economy was called in that language the Kαινὴ Διαθήκη, in contradistinction to the Παλαιὰ Aiαonkη; hence in Latin, which later preponderated as the vehicle of religious thought, the terms were rendered by Vetus and Novum Testamentum, whence come our equivalent English terms.

The books of the Old Testament can, from their very nature, be easily divided into three great classes: The Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. Such division, in fact, existed among the Jews from the very earliest times, but their arbitrary, ill founded ranging of the different books under each. particular class renders their data worthless. By their division, we must include Daniel among the Hagiographa, while Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are enrolled among the Prophets. Of course the Law remained ever and with all a unique element, admitting no other book to be classified with itself. Many try to assign reasons for the classification of the Jews. We are not minded to do this. It is to us a groundless, worthless division, never adopted by any writer of modern times. There was also in vogue among the Jews a well known liturgical secor five volumes : The Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, the Lamentations of Jeremias, Ecclesiastes and Esther. These formed a collection which was wont to be read on certain festal days of the year.

חָמֵשׁ מִגְלוֹת tion of Holy Scripture, the

Our Saviour and the Apostles oft divided the Old Testament in two great divisions, the Law and the Prophets; thus, in a general way, designating all that was subsequent to the Law as the Prophets.

The Jews were wont also to divide the Pentateuch into liturgical divisions which they call, from root, to expound. These were first arranged so that every third year the Pentateuch was totally read in the synagogues. Now, however, the Babylonian mode prevails in all the synagogues, which divides the Pentateuch in fifty-four parashas, so arranged that,

al

by reading them on every Saturday, they finish the Pentateuch within the course of the year. To this usage St. James alludes, Acts XV, 21: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every Sabbath." These parashas are designated in the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch by three or three D They are designated by if the section begins on the beginning of the line; by D if it begins in the middle of the line. The is initial for inne, open; to signify that the section is an open one, as it begins with the line; while D is initial for niping, closed; implying that the section is shut up, as it were, beginning in the middle of the line. Thus, for instance, the first parasha, Gen. I, 1—VI, 8 inclusively, is open; so also the second, extending from VI, 9-XI, inclusively, is open and designated by three The parasha, enclosed from Gen. XXVIII, 11-XXXII, 3. inclusively, is closed, and designated by three The parashas were subdivided into minor sections, designated in the Hebrew text by single or as they respectively began either in the beginning or middle of a line. Later, they conjoined the reading of select portions of the Prophets to the sections of the Law. They called these , from root, to dismiss; because, after they were read, the people were dismissed. It was in accordance with this usage, that Jesus Christ at Nazareth read in the synagogue the passage from Isaias, Luke IV, 16-19. This haftara is not now found among those assigned for synagogical readings. The antimessianic tendency of the Jews has probably expunged it.

T

Setting aside, therefore, Rabbinical opinions, we can easily arrange all the books under the three great heads. First, the Law, comprising the five books of Moses; second, the Prophets, comprising the four great Prophets and the twelve minor Prophets, and lastly, the Hagiographa, composed of all the remaining books. However, modern writers find it commodious to divide the books in still another way, to facilitate their treatment. In this modern division, the motive of classification is the nature of the theme of the book. They thus divide them into Historical, Sapiential, Poetic, and Prophetic books. We shall employ this division in our Special Introduction to the different books.

The well known division of both Testaments into the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books seems to have first been employed by Sixtus Sennensis (1520-1569). In his Biblio

theca Sancta, Book I, Sec. 1, he writes thus: "The Canonical books of the first order we may call protocanonical; the Canonical books of the second order were formerly called ecclesiastical, but are now by us termed deuterocanonical." Although retaining and making use of this nomenclature, we in no wise attribute an inferior degree of dignity to the books of the second canon; they are in such respect equal, as God is the author of all of them. We designate by the name of protocanonical, the books concerning whose divine origin no doubts ever existed; while the deuterocanonical books are those concerning which greater or less doubts were entertained for a time by some, till finally the genuinity of the books was acknowledged, and they were solemnly approved by the Church.

The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are seven : Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the two books of Maccabees. Together with these, there are deuterocanonical fragments of Esther, (from the 4th verse of 10 to 24 verse of 16 chapter, and Daniel III, 24-90; XIII, XIV). The deuterocanonical books of the New Testament are also seven in number: The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistle of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse of St. John. There are also deuterocanonical fragments of Mark, XVI, 9-20; Luke XXII, 43-44; and John VII, 53VIII, II. Many of the protestants reject all the deuterocanonical books, and apply to them the term Apocryphal. It shall be a part of our labors to defend the equal authority of these books.

The Jewish mode of enumeration of their Holy Books was as arbitrary and as worthless as was their system of division. Taking twenty-two, the number of the letters of their alphabet, as a number of mystic signification, they violently made the number of the Books of Holy Scripture conform thereto. Josephus makes use of this mode of enumeration. In his defense against Apion, he says: "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us (as the Greeks have), disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twentytwo books, which contain the records of all past times; which are justly believed to be divine." [Contra Apion I, 8]. St. Jerome also, in his famous Prologus Galeatus to the Books of Kings, testifies of the existence of such number, and explains its mystic foundation: "As there are twenty two elements, by which we write in Hebrew all that which we speak, so twenty-two volumes are computed by which, as by letters and

rudiments, the tender and suckling infancy of the just man is trained in the doctrine of God." "And thus there are of the Old Law twenty-two books; five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa. Some, however, reckon Ruth and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and consider that these are to be numbered in their individual number, and thus they think to be of the Old Law twenty-four books, which John personifies in the number of the twenty-four Ancients who adore the Lamb." We see then that there were two modes of enumeration, and the Fathers mixed these modes in trying to conform their enumeration with the Jewish tradition. We can not tell who was the first to find a mystic relation between the Greek alphabet of twenty-four letters and the twenty-four books, but it must have been done after the preponderance of the Hellenistic influence. The appended schema will more vividly illustrate the Jewish mode of enumeration of the Holy Books:

By separating Ruth from Judges, and the Lamentations from Jeremiah, twenty-four books resulted, and these are the books of the Jewish Canon, or as it is commonly called the Canon of Ezra, from his supposed influence upon it. As no doubts have ever arisen concerning these books, they have been called the protocanonical works or books of the First Canon. Which mode of computation is prior, it is impossible to ascertain with certainty. Loisy believes the number twentyfour to be prior, as it seems to be the Talmudic number. Against this is the authority of Josephus, who speaks of the number twenty-two as the sole traditional one. A question of so little importance may well be left in its uncertainty.

CHAPTER VI.

EZRA AND HIS INFLUENCE.

The History of the Canon of the Old Testament is obscure and difficult, through default of reliable documents. In tracing it through its remote antiquity, we shall endeavor to bring forth in their clearest light the certain data, filling up the lacunas by the best warranted conjectures.

The nucleus of the Old Law was the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. Around this centre of development was aggregated all the Sacred writings of the Jews. It was the

in, the Law, par excellence, the divine book. The subsequent books, even though by them considered divine, were never held equal in dignity to "the Law by the hand of Moses". They were but adjuncts, participating in the great