was made between canonical and non-canonical books. The test of the former was

inspiration, which had ceased in the time of Artaxerxes, that is, with the prophet Malachi.

Accordingly, the work of the elder Jesus the son of Sirach (Jeshua ben Sira, ben Eliezer)

was excluded from the Canon, although it is not unfrequently referred to by Rabbinic

authorities in terms with which ordinarily only Biblical quotations are introduced.12

According to the view propounded by Josephus, not only were the very words inspired in

which a prediction was uttered, but the prophets were unconscious and passive vehicles

of the Divine message (Ant. iv. 6. 5, comp generally, Ant ii. 8. 1; vi. 8, 2; viii. 13, 3; ix. 3,

2, 8, 6; x. 2, 2; 4, 3). Although pre-eminence in this respect was assigned to Moses (Ant.

iv. 8, 49), yet Divine authority equally attached to t he sayings of the prophets, and even,

though perhaps in a still inferior degree, to the 'Hymns,' as the Hagiographa generally

were called from the circumstance that the Psalter stood at the head of them (comp.

Philo, De Vita contempl., ed. Mangey, voi. ii. p. 475; St. Luke xxiv. 44). Thus the

division of the Bible into three sections - the Law, the Prophets, and the other 'Writings' -

which already occurs in the prologue to the work of Jesus the son of Sirach,  13 seems to

have been current at the time. And here it is of great interest, in connection with modern

controversies, that Josephus seems to attach special importance to the prophecies of

Daniel as still awaiting fulfilment (Ant. x 10. 4; 11. 7).

That the Rabbis entertained the same views of inspiration, appears not only from the

distinctive name of 'Holy Writings' given to the Scriptures, but also from the directions

that their touch defiled the hands,14 and that it was duty on the Sabbath to save them from

conflagration, and to gather them up if accidentally scattered, and that it was not lawful

for heirs to make division of a sacred roll (Comp. Shabb. xvi. 1; Erub. x. 3; Kel. xv. 6;

Yad. iii. 2-5; iv. 5 [where special reference is made to Daniel 6]). From what we know of

the state o f feeling, we might have inferred, even if direct evidence had not existed that a

distinctive and superior place would be ascribed to the Books of Moses. In point of fact,

the other books of Scripture, alike the Prophets and the Hagiographa,15 are only

des ignated as Qabbalah ('received,' handed down, tradition), which is also the name

given to oral tradition.  16 It was said that the Torah was given to Moses (Jer. Sheq. vi. 1)

'in (letters of) white fire graven upon black fire,' although it was matter of disp ute

whether he received it volume by volume or complete as a whole (Gitt. 60 a). But on the

question of its inspiration not the smallest doubt could be tolerated. Thus, to admit

generally, that 'the Torah as a whole was from heaven, except this (one) verse, which the

Holy One, blessed be He, did not speak, but Moses of himself' was to become an infidel

and a blasphemer (Sanh. 99 a ).17 Even the concluding verses in Deuteronomy had been