them all. We can readily understand that, in times of national sorrow or excitement, these
prophecies would be eagerly resorted to, as pointing to a glorious future.
26. And yet there are frequent indications that Rabbinism sought guidance on these very
subjects in the prophecies of Daniel. Thus, in the Pirqé de R. Eliezer there are repeated
references to the four monarchies - the Persian, Media n, Macedonian, and Roman - when,
in the time of the fifth monarchy, that of the children of Ishmael - after a terrible war
against Rome, the Messiah would come (comp. Pirqé de R. El. 19, and especially 28, 30,
and 48).
But although the Book of Daniel was not among the Antilegomena, doubts were raised,
not indeed about the age, but about the right to canonicity of certain other portions of the
Bible. Thus, certain expressions in the prophecies of Ezekiel were questioned as
apparently incompatible with state ments in the Pentateuch27 (Men. 45 a), and although a
celebrated Rabbi, Chananyah, the son of Chizkuyah, the son of Garon (about the time of
Christ), with immense labour, sought to conciliate them, and thus preserved the Book of
Ezekiel (or, at least, part of it) from being relegated among the Apocrypha, it was deemed
safest to leave the final exposition of the meaning of Ezekiel, 'till Elijah come,' as the
restorer of all things.
27. Among them the following may be mentioned (Chull. 37 b): Ezek. iv. 14 &c. , and
(Mop 45 a), Ezek. xiv. 31 were regarded as suggesting that these prohibitions applied
only to priests; (Moed. K. 5 a) Ezek. xliv. 19, seemed to imply that an ordinary Israelite
might perform sacrificial service, while Ezek. xiv. 18 appeared to enjoin a sacrifice
nowhere mentioned in the Pentateuch.
The other objections to canonicity apply exclusively to the third division of the Old
Testament, the Kethubhim or Hagiographa. Here even the Book of Proverbs seems at one
time to have been called in question (Ab. R. Nathan 1), partly on the ground of its secular
contents, and partly as containing 'supposed contradictory statements'28 (Shabb. 30 b).
Very strong doubts were raised on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Yad. iii. 5; Eduy. v. 3), first,
on that ground of its contradiction to some of the Psalms29 (Shabb. 30 a); secondly, on
that of its inconsistencies30 (Shabb. 30 b ); and thirdly, because it seemed to countenance
the denial of another life, and, as in Eccl. xi 1, 3, 9, other heretical views (Vayyikra R. 28,
at the beginning).31 But these objections were finally answered by great ingenuity, while
an appeal to Eccl. xii. 12, 13, was regarded as removing the difficulty about another life
and future rewards and punishments. And as the contradictions in Ecclesiastes had been
conciliated, it hopefully argued deeper study would equally remove those in the Book of
Proverbs (Shabb. 30 b ).32 Still, the controversy about the canonicity of Ecclesiastes
continue so late as the second century of our era (comp. Yad. iii. 5). That grave doubts
also existed about the Song of Solomon, appears even from the terms in which its
canonicity is insisted upon (Yad. u. s.), not to speak of express statements in opposition
to it (Ab. de. R. Nathan 1). Even when by an allegorical interp retation it was shown to be
the 'wisdom of all wisdom,' the most precious gem, the holy of holies, tradition still
ascribed its composition to the early years of Solomon (Shir haSh. R. 1). It had been his
first work, and was followed by Proverbs, and finally by Ecclesiastes.33 But perhaps the
greatest objections were those taken to the Book of Esther (Meg. 7 a). It excited the
enmity of other nations against Israel, and it was outside the canon. Grave doubts