prevailed whether it was canonical or inspired by the Holy Spirit (Meg. u. s.; Yoma 29 a).
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were anciently regarded as one - the name of the latter
author being kept back on account of his tendency to self-exaltation (Sanh. 93 b ). Lastly,
the genealogical parts of the Book o f Chronicles were made the subject of very elaborate
secret commentation (Pes. 62 b ).
28. For ex. Prov. xxvi. 4, 5.
29. As for ex. Ps. cxv. 17 compared with Eccl. iv. 2 and ix. 4.
30. For ex. Eccl. ii. 2 comp. with vii. 3; and again, vii 15, or iv. 2 comp . with ix. 4.
31. The school of Shammai was against, that of Hillel in favour of the Canonicity of
Ecclesiastes (Eduy. v. 3). In Tos. Yad. ii. Ecclesiastes is said to be uninspired, and to
contain only the wisdom of Solomon.
32. But it must be admitted t hat some of these conciliations are sufficiently curious.
33. But on this subject opinion differ very widely (see Shir haSh. R. 1, ed Warshan, pp. 3
b and 4 a) the only point on which all are agreed being that he wrote Ecclesiastes last -
Rabbi Jonathan irreverently remarking that when a man is old he utters dibhré hadhalim -
vain words!
Two points still require brief mention. Even from a comparison of the LXX. Version with
our Hebrew text, it is evident that there were not only many variations, but that spurious
additions (as Daniel) were eliminated. This critical activity, which commenced with Ezra,
whose copy of the Pentateuch was, according to tradition, placed in the Temple, that the
people might correct their copies by it, must have continued for many centuries.34 There
is abundant evidence of frequent divergences - though perhaps minute - and although
later Rabbinism laid down the most painfully minute directions about the mode of writing
and copying the rolls of the Law, there is such discrepancy, e ven where least it might be
expected,35 as to show that the purification of the text was by no means settled.
Considering the want of exegetical knowledge and historical conscientiousness, and
keeping in view how often the Rabbis, for Haggadic purposes, alter letters, and thus
change the meaning of words, we may well doubt the satisfactory character of their
critical labours. Lastly, as certain omissions were made, and as the Canon underwent (as
will be shown) repeated revision, it may have been certain portions were added as well as
left out, and words changed as well as restored.
34. In Jer. Tann. 68 a we read three codices of the Pentateuch. respectively named after
one word in each codex. the reading of which was either rejected or adopted on
comparison with the others.
35. Thus, we have different notices about the number of verses in the Bible, the
arrangement of the psalter, the medial latter and medial word in the Pentateuch, and the
number of its sections and chapters (Kidd. 30 a; Yalkut i. § 855). Bu t the sum total of
verses in the Bible (23,199) differs by 99 from that in our present text. Similarity, one of
the most learned Rabbinic critics of the third century declares himself at a loss about the
exact medial letter, word, and verse of the Pentateuch, while in Palestine that Pentateuch