Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books of Septuagint
TITLES, GROUPING, NUMBER, AND ORDER OF THE BOOKS
(Открывок из книги: H.B. Swete.
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes)
THE Greek Old Testament, as known to us through the few codices which
contain it as a whole, and from the lists which appear in the Biblical MSS. or
in ancient ecclesiastical writings, differs from the Hebrew Bible in regard to
the titles of the books which are common to both, and the principle upon which
the books are grouped. The two collections differ yet more materially in the
number of the books, the Greek Bible containing several entire writings of
which there is no vestige in the Hebrew canon, besides large additions to the
contents of more than one of the Hebrew books. These differences are of much
interest to the Biblical student, since they express a tradition which,
inherited by the Church from the Alexandrian synagogue, has widely influenced
Christian opinion upon the extent of the Old Testament Canon, and the character
and purpose of the several books.
1. The following tables shew (A) the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin titles of the
canonical books of the Old Testament; (B) the order and grouping of the books
in (1) lists of Jewish origin, (2) the great uncial MSS. of the Greek
Bible, (3) patristic and synodical lists of the (a) Eastern,
(b) Western Church.
2. We may now proceed to consider the chief points which these
tables illustrate.
(1) THE TITLES OF THE BOOKS. It will
be seen that the Hebrew titles fall into three classes. They consist of either
(1) the first word or words of the book (Genesis—Deuteronomy, Proverbs,
Lamentations); or (2) the name of the hero or supposed author (Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, Kings, Isaiah and the other Prophets, Job, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra);
or (3) a description of the contents (Psalms, Song of Songs, Chronicles). Titles
of the second and third class are generally reproduced in the Greek; there are
some variations, as when Samuel and Kings become 'Kingdoms,' and 'Diaries'
(דִּבְי־הֵיָּטִים) is changed
into 'Omissions' (Παραλειπόμενα15), but the system of nomenclature is the same. But
titles of the first class disappear in the Greek, and in their place we find
descriptive names, suggested in almost every case by words in the version
itself.
Thus Genesis appears to come from Gen. ii. 4
αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐραωοῦ καὶ
γῆς, Exodus from Ex. xix.
1τῆς ἐξόδοθ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ
γῆς Αἰγύπτου, Numbers from Num. i. 2
κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐξ ὀνόματος,
Deuteronomy from Deut.
xvii. 18 γράψει αὐτῷ τὸ
δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο εἰς βιβλίον16, Ecclesiastes from Eccl. i. 1
ῥήmata ἐkklhsiastoῦ.
The Greek titles are probably of Alexandrian origin and
pre-Christian use. Not only were they familiar to Origen (Eus. H. E. vi.
25), but they are used in Melito's list, although it came from Palestine. Some
of them at least appear to have been known to the writers of the New Testament;
cf. Acts ii. 30
ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν, xiii. 33
ἐν τῷ ψακνῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ, Rom. ix. 25
ἐν τῷ Ὡσῆε λέγει17. Philo18 uses Γένεσις,
Λευιτικὸν or Λευιτικὴ βίβλος,
Δεθτερονόμιον, Βασιλεῖαι, Παροιμίαι, but his practice is not quite
constant; e.g. he calls Exodus ἡ
Ἐξαγωγή19; Deuteronomy is sometimes ἡ Ἐπινομίς, and Judges ἡ τῶν Κ͓ιμάτων20βίβλος, Similar titles occur in the Mishna21, whether suggested by the Alexandrian Greek, or
independently coined by the Palestinian Jews; thus Genesis is סֵפֶּר יְצִירָה, Numbers ס׳ מִסְפָּרִים, Proverbs ס׳ חָכְמָה, Lamentations קִינוֹת.
Through the Old Latin version the Greek titles passed into the
Latin Bible22, and from the Latin Bible into the later versions of
Western Christendom. In three instances, however, the influence of Jerome
restored the Hebrew titles; 1, 2 Kingdoms
have
become 1, 2 Samuel, and 3, 4 Kingdoms, 1, 2 Kings, whilst 'Chronicles,'
representing the Hebrew דִּבְרֵי־הַיָּמִים, has taken the place of
Paralipomenon.
Cf Hieron. Prol. Gal.: "tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regnorum
primum et secundum dicimus; quartus Malachim, id est Regum,
qui tertio et quarto Regnorum volumine continetur . . .
septimus Dabre aiamim, id est 'Verba dierum,' quod significantius
Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare."
The Greek titles vary slightly in
different codices and lists. Besides the variations of cod. A which appear in
Table B (2), the following are mentioned in the apparatus of Holmes and Parsons.
Joshua: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναυή, ὁ τοῦ
Ναυή, Judges: Κριταὶ τοῦ
Ἰσραήλ, αἱ τῶν κριτῶν πράξεις. Chronicles: Παραλειπομένων τῶν βασιλειῶν Ἰούδα. Psalms:
Δαυὶδ προφήτου καὶ βασιλέως
μέλος. When Nehemiah is separated from Ezra its title is: τὰ περὶ Νεεμίου or λόγοι Ν. υἱοῦ Ἁχαλία. A few further forms may be
gleaned from the patristic lists. As an alternative for Παραλειπομένων the Apostolic Canons give τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν ἡμερῶν, while Ezra is
known to Hilary as sermones dierum
Esdrae. The Psalter is sometimes βίβλος Ψαλμῶν, liber Psalmorum, or Ψαλτήριον Δαβιτικόν, Psalmi David
regis, Psalterium Daviticum. For ᾎσμα ᾀσμάτων we have occasionally ᾄσματα ᾀσμάτων—a form rejected by Origen
(ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 25 οὐ
γάρ, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνουσί τινες, ᾌσματα ᾀσμάτων), but used by
Pseudo-Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and found in cod. A and in several of
the Latin lists23; cf. the English Article VI. "Cantica, or Songs of
Solomon." The lesser Prophets are οἱ δώδεκα or δεκαδύο, τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν μία βίβλος, τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον,
prophetae xii; the greater, οἱ τέσσαρες, prophetae iv, prophetae iv maiorum
voluminum, or simply maiores; when the two collections are merged
into one they become οἱ δεκαέξ
or οἱ ἑκκαίδεκα, τὸ ἑκκαιδεκαπρόφητον,
prophetae xvi.
(2) THE GROUPING OF THE BOOKS. The
methods of grouping adopted in the Hebrew and Alexandrian Greek Bibles differ
not less widely than the nomenclature of the books. The Hebrew canon is
uniformly tripartite, and "the books belonging to one division are never (by the
Jews) transferred to another24." Its three groups are known as the Law
(תּוֹרָה), the Prophets (נְבִאִים), and the Writings (כְּתוּבִים). The Massora recognised,
however, certain subdivisions within the second and third groups; the Prophets
were classed as Former (רִאשׁוֹנִים), i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; and
Latter (אַחֲרוֹנִים),
and among the 'Latter' the Twelve minor Prophets formed a single collection25. Similarly 'the five Rolls' (מְגִלּוׂת), i.e. Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, Esther, made a subsection among the Kethubim. The tripartite
division of the canon was known at Alexandria in the second century B.C., for the writer of the prologue to Sirach refers to
it more than once (1 f. τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν
κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων: 6 f. τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
πατρίων βιβλίων: 14 f.
ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ
λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων). It is also recognised in the New Testament, where the
Law and the Prophets are mentioned as authoritative collections, and in one
passage the 'Writings' are represented by the Psalter (Lc. xxiv.
44 πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ
Μωυσέως καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς). But the New Testament has no
comprehensive name for the third group, and even Josephus (c. Ap. i. 8)
speaks of four poetical books (probably Psalms, Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes)
as forming with the Law and the Prophets the entire series of sacred books; the
rest of the Hagiographa seem to have been counted by him among the Prophets26. At Alexandria the later books were probably attached
to the canon by a looser bond. The writer of the De vita contemplativa
appears to recognise four groups27 (§ 3 νόμους, καὶ λόγια θεσπισθέντα διὰ προφητῶν, καὶ ὕμνους, καὶ τὰ
ἄλλα οἷς ἐπιστήμη καὶ εὐσέβεια συναύξονται καὶ τελειοῦνται).
Only the first of the three Palestinian groups remains
undisturbed28 in the
Alexandrian Greek Bible, as it is preserved to us in MSS. and described in
Christian lists. When the Law was translated into Greek, it was already a
complete collection, hedged round with special sanctions, and in all forms of
the Greek Bible it retains its precedence and has resisted any extensive
intrusion of foreign matter. It is otherwise with the Prophets and the
Hagiographa. Neither of these groups escaped decomposition when it passed into
the Greek Bible. The Former Prophets are usually separated from the Latter, the
poetical books coming between. The Hagiographa are entirely broken up, the
non-poetical books being divided between the histories and the prophets. This
distribution is clearly due to the characteristically Alexandrian desire to
arrange the books according to their literary character or contents, or their
supposed authorship. Histories were made to consort with histories, prophetic
and poetical writings with others of their respective kinds. On this principle
Daniel is in all Greek codices and catalogues one of the Greater Prophets, while
Ruth attaches itself to Judges, and Canticles to Ecclesiastes.
In many of the Greek patristic lists the Alexandrian principle
of grouping receives express recognition. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of
Nazianzus, and Leontius, divide the books of the Old Testament into (1)
historical—12, including the Mosaic Pentateuch; (2) poetical—5; (3)
prophetical—5. Epiphanius, followed by John of Damascus, endeavours to combine
this grouping with a system of pentateuchs29—(1) legal, (2) poetical, (3) historical30, (4) prophetical
—an
end which he attains by relegating Ezra and Esther to an appendix.
Pseudo-Chrysostom's arrangement is similar, though slightly different in some of
its details; according to his view the Bible began with an Octateuch, and the
στιχηρά are broken up, the
Psalter being placed with the Prophets, and the Salomonic books described as
'hortatory31' (τὸ
συιβουλευτικόν). Even in the eccentric arrangement of Junilius32 the Greek method of grouping is clearly dominant.
The relative order of the groups in the Greek Bible, being of
literary and not historical origin, is to some extent liable to variation. The
'five books of Moses' always claim precedence, and the 'rest of the histories'
follow, but the position of the poetical and prophetical books is less certain.
Codex B places the poetical books first, whilst in Codd. א and A the prophets precede. But the order of
cod. B is supported by the great majority of authorities both Eastern and
Western (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1, 3), Gregory,
Amphilochius, the Laodicene and 'Apostolic' canons, Nicephorus,
Pseudo-Chrysostom, the Cheltenham list, the African canons of 397, and
Augustine). Two reasons may have combined to favour this arrangement. 'David'
and 'Solomon' were higher up the stream of time than Hosea and Isaiah. Moreover,
it may have seemed fitting that the Prophets should immediately precede the
Evangelists.
(3) THE NUMBER OF THE BOOKS. In our
printed Hebrew Bibles the books of the Old Testament are 39 (Law, 5; Former
Prophets (Joshua—2 Kings), 6; Latter Prophets, 15; Hagiographa, 13). But Samuel,
Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, and
Chronicles33, were originally single books34, and the Minor Prophets were also counted as a single
book. Thus the number is reduced to 24 (Law, 5; Former Prophets, 4; Latter
Prophets, 4; Hagiographa, 11), and this answers to the prevalent Jewish
tradition. On the other hand Josephus expressly limits the books to 22 (Law, 5;
Prophets, i3; Hymns and moral pieces, 4). He has probably included the
historical Hagiographa among the Prophets, and treated Ruth and Lamentations as
appendices to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.
Both traditions were inherited by the Church, but the latter was
predominant, especially in the East. In some lists indeed the twenty-two books
became twenty-seven, the 'double books' being broken up into their parts (Epiph.
1)35; in some a similar treatment of the Dodecapropheton
raised the number to 34 (the 'Sixty Books'), and there are other eccentricities
of numeration which need not be mentioned here.
Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8: οὐ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀσυμφώνων
καὶ μαχομένων, δύο μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία . . . καὶ τούτων πέντε
μέν ἐστι Μωυσέως . . . οἱ μετὰ Μωυσῆν προφῆται . . .
συνέγραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις· αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν θεὸν
καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. He is followed by
Origen ap. Eus. l.c.οὐκ
ἀγνοητέον δ᾿ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους ὡς Ἐβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, ὅσος ὁ
ἀριθμὸς τῶν παῤ αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν· and Cyril. Hier. catech.
iv. 33 ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφάς, τὰς
εἴκοςι δύο βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. Similarly Athanasius, ep.
fest. 39 (Migne, P.G. xxvi. col. 1437). When another numeration was
adopted, efforts were made
to shew that it did not involve a real departure from the canon of twenty-two;
cf. Epiph. haer. i. I. 8, αὗταί
εἰσιν αἱ εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ βίβλοι αἱ ἐκ θεοῦ δοθεῖσαι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, εἴκοσι δύο δὲ ὡς
τὰ παῤ αὐτοῖς στοιχεῖα τῶν Ἐβραικῶν γραμμάτων ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ διπλοῦσθαι
δέκα βίβλους εἰς πέντε λεγομένας· dial. Tim. et Aq. (ed.
Conybeare, p. 66), αὗται αἱ βίβλοι αἱ
θεόπνευστοι καὶ ἐνδιάθετοι, κςʹ μὲν οὖσαι, κβʹ δὲ ἀριθμούμεναι διὰ τὸ
. . . ἐξ αὐτῶν διπλοῦσθαι.
On the other hand the numeration in 4 Esdr. xiv. 44
rests, if nongenti quatuor be the
true reading, on a tradition which makes the Hebrew books 24. This tradition is
supported by the testimony of the Talmud and the Rabbinical literature36, and the Canon is known in Jewish writings by the name
כ״ד ספרים, "the Twenty-Four
Books." It finds a place in certain Western Christian writers, e.g. Victorinus
of Petau comm. in Apoc.: "sunt autem libri
V.T. qui accipiuntur viginti quatuor quos in epitome Theodori invenies37." Victorinus compares the 24 books to the 24 Elders of
Apoc. iv., and
the same fancy finds a place in the Cheltenham list ("ut in apocalypsi Iohannis
dictum est Vidi XXIIII seniores mittentes coronas suas ante thronum,
maiores nostri probant hoc libros esse canonicos"). Jerome knows both
traditions, though he favours the former (Prol. Gal. "quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt . . . ita
viginti duo volumina supputantur . . . quamquam nonnulli Ruth et
Cinoth inter Hagiograpba scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero
supputandos et per hoc esse priscae legis libros viginti quatuor").
Let us now turn to the ecclesiastical lists and see how far the
Hebrew Canon was maintained.
Our earliest Christian list was obtained from Palestine38, and probably represents the contents of the
Palestinian Greek Bible. It is an attempt to answer the question, What is the
true number and order of the books of the Old Testament? Both the titles and the
grouping are obviously Greek, but the books are exclusively those of the Hebrew
canon. Esther does not appear, but the number of the books is twenty-two, if we
are intended to count 1—4 Regn. as two.
The next list comes from Origen. It belongs to his commentary on
the first Psalm, which was written at Alexandria39, i.e. before A.D. 231.
The books included in it are expressly said to be the twenty-two of the Hebrew
canon εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ εἴκοσι δύο βίβλοι καθ᾿
Ἑβραίους αἵδε). Yet among them are the first book of Esdras40 and the Epistle of Jeremiah, which the Jews never
recognised. With the addition of Baruch, Origen's list is repeated by
Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius (1), and in the Laodicean canon; Amphilochius
mentions two books of Esdras, and it is at least possible that the Esdras of
Gregory of Nazianzus is intended to include both books, and that the Epistle, or
Baruch and the Epistle, are to be understood as forming part of Jeremiah in the
lists both of Gregory and Amphilochius. Thus it appears that an expansion of the
Hebrew canon, which involved no addition to the number of the books, was
predominant in the East during the fourth century.
The Eastern lists contain other books, but they are definitely
placed outside the Canon. This practice seems to have begun with Origen, who
after enumerating the twenty-two books adds, ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά. Athanasius takes up the
expression, but names other books—the two Wisdoms, Esther41, Judith, and Tobit42. Palestine was perhaps naturally conservative in this
matter; Cyril will not allow his catechumens to go beyond the Canon, and
Epiphanius mentions only, and that with some hesitation, the two books of Wisdom
(εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι παῤ αὐτοῖς βίβλοι ἐν
ἀμφιλέκτῳ43 . . .
αὗται χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι, ἀλλ᾿
εἰς ἀριθμὸν ῥητῶν οὐκ ἀναφέρονται)44. And this was the prevalent attitude of the East even
at a later time. There are exceptions; Pseudo-Chrysostom places Sirach among the
Hortatory books of the canon; the Apostolic canons, while excluding Sirach,
include three books of Maccabees. But John of Damascus reflects the general
opinion of the Greek fathers when, while reckoning both books of Esdras45 as canonical, he repeats the verdict of Epiphanius upon
the two Wisdoms, Ἐηάρετοι μὲν καὶ
καλαί, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀριθμοῦνται46.
On the other hand the West, further from the home of the Hebrew
canon, and knowing the Old Testament chiefly through the Latin version of the
LXX., did not scruple to mingle non-canonical
books with the canonical. Hilary and Ruffinus47 were doubtless checked, the one by the influence of
Eastern theologians, the other by the scholarship of Jerome; but Hilary mentions
that there were those who wished to raise the number of the canonical books to
twenty-four by including Tobit and Judith in the canon. From the end of the
fourth century the inclusion of the non-canonical books in Western lists is a
matter of course. Even Augustine has no scruples on the subject; he makes the
books of the Old Testament forty-four (de doctr. Chr. ii. 13 "his xliv libris Testamenti Veteris terminatur
auctoritas48"), and among them Tobit, Judith, and two books of
Maccabees take rank with the histories; and the two Wisdoms, although he
confesses that they were not the work of Solomon, are classed with the
Prophets.
His judgement was that of his Church (Conc. Carth. iii. can. xlvii.
"sunt canonicae scripturae Salomonis libri quinque
. . . Tobias, Judith . . . Machabaeorum libri duo").
The African Church had probably never known any other canon, and its belief
prevailed wherever the Latin Bible was read.
There can be little doubt that, notwithstanding the strict
adherence of the Eastern lists to the number of the Hebrew books, the Old Latin
canon truly represents the collection of Greek sacred books which came into the
hands of the early Christian communities at Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. When
Origen and the Greek fathers who follow him fix the number of the books at
twenty-two or twenty-four, they follow, not the earlier tradition of the Church,
but the corrected estimate of Christian scholars who had learned it from Jewish
teachers. An earlier tradition is represented by the line of Christian writers,
beginning with Clement of Rome, who quoted the 'Apocryphal' books apparently
without suspecting that they were not part of the Canon. Thus Clement of Rome49 places the story of Judith side by side with that of
Esther; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas50 and the Didache51, and Tobit by Polycarp52; Clement of Alexandria53 and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms, to
which Origen adds Judith54. Our earliest MSS. of the Greek Bible confirm the
impression derived from the quotations of the earliest Christian writers. Their
canon corresponds not with that of the great writers of the age when they were
written, but with that of the Old Latin version of the LXX. Codd. B א A contain the two Wisdoms, Tobit, and Judith; 1—2
Maccabees are added in א, and
1—4 Maccabees in A; cod. C still exhibits the two Wisdoms, and when complete may
have contained other books of the same class. Moreover,
the position of the books shews that the scribes of these MSS. or of their
archetypes lacked either the power or the will to distinguish them from the
books of the Hebrew canon. In the light of the facts already produced, it is
clear that the presence of the non-canonical books in Greek Bibles cannot be
attributed to the skilled writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. They have
but perpetuated an older tradition—a tradition probably inherited from the
Alexandrian Jews.
An explanation of the early mixture of non-canonical books with
canonical may be found in the form under which the Greek Bible passed into the
keeping of the Church. In the first century the material used for literary
purposes was still almost exclusively papyrus, and the form was that of the
roll55. But rolls of papyrus seldom contained more than a
single work, and writings of any length, especially if divided into books, were
often transcribed into two or more separate rolls56. The rolls were kept in boxes (κιβωτοί, κίσται, capsae, sistae)57, which served not only to preserve them, but to collect
them in sets. Now while the sanctity of the five books of Moses would protect
the cistae which contained them from the intrusion of foreign rolls, no
scruple of this kind would deter the owner of a roll of Esther from placing it
in the same box with Judith and Tobit; the Wisdoms in like manner naturally
found their way into a Salomonic collection; while in a still larger number of
instances the two Greek recensions of Esdras consorted together, and Baruch and
the Epistle seemed rightly to claim a place with the roll of Jeremiah. More
rarely such a writing as the Psalms of Solomon may have found its way into the
company of kindred books of the canon. It is not a serious objection to this
hypothesis that Philo does not quote the Apocrypha, and has no certain allusion to it58. A great scholar would not be deceived by the mixture
of heterogeneous rolls, which might nevertheless seriously mislead ordinary
readers, and start a false tradition in an unlettered community such as the
Christian society of the first century.
(4) THE INTERNAL ORDER OF THE GROUPS. Even in Jewish lists of the Hebrew Canon
there are variations in the internal order of the Prophets and the Hagiographa.
The 'Great Prophets' occur in each of the three orders (1) Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel; (2) Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah; (3) Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel59. The order of the Hagiographa varies more extensively.
In the printed Bibles they are arranged in three subdivisions: (1) Psalms,
Proverbs, Job; (2) Canticles, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther (the five
Megilloth); (3) Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles. The Talmudic order is as follows:
Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel,
Esther, Chronicles. The MSS. vary, many agreeing with the printed Bibles;
others, especially those of Spanish provenance, following the order:
Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations,
Esther, Daniel, Ezra60.
In the lists of the Greek Bible and the sequence of its MSS. the
Law and the 'Former Prophets' generally retain their Hebrew order, with the
noteworthy exception that Ruth is always attached to Judges. But there are also
minor exceptions which are of some interest. Even in the Pentateuch Melito,
Leontius, and the Cheltenham list reverse the common order of Leviticus and
Numbers61. The sequence is broken in some lists after Ruth
(Laod., Epiph. 1), or even after Joshua (Epiph.
362) or Deuteronomy (Epiph. 1). Occasionally Chronicles,
which is an intruder from the Hagiographa, precedes 1—4 Regn. (Epiph. 2,
Dial. Tim. et Aq.), or drops out altogether (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Cod.
Clarom.). All these disturbances of the normal order may be ascribed to local or
individual influences, and find no support in the uncial MSS. of the Greek
Bible. But it is otherwise when we come to the 'Latter Prophets' and the
Hagiographa. With regard to the Prophets, three questions of order arise. (1)
There is the relative order of the Twelve and the Four. In the majority of
patristic lists the Twelve precede (Ath., Cyr., Epiph., Greg., Amph., &c.),
and this is also the order of Codd. A, B, N-V. But Cod. א begins with the Four, and it is supported by
other authorities, chiefly Western (Ruff, Chelt., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius,
Nicephorus); whilst in a few the subdivisions are mixed (Melito, Junilius,
Ebedjesu63). (2) The internal order of the δωδεκαπρόφητον in most of the MSS. and
catalogues64 where it is stated differs from the Hebrew order in
regard to the relative positions of the prophets in the first half of the group;
the Hebrew order being Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, but the Greek,
Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. The dominant Greek order may perhaps
be due to "an attempt to secure greater accuracy in the chronological
arrangement65." (3) The Greek
order of the Greater Prophets follows the oldest Hebrew tradition (Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel), but it appends Lamentations to Jeremiah, and enlarges the
group by placing Daniel either before (Melito, Origen, Hilary, Chelt.,
Augustine), or, more usually, after Ezekiel.
The relative order of the Hagiographa in the LXX. is more perplexing. For Ruth, Lamentations, and
Daniel we have already accounted; there remain Chronicles, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, and Ezra. Chronicles, in accordance
with the theory enshrined in its Greek name, usually follows Kings. Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, for the most part hold together in that
order, as a group of poetical books; but there are many exceptions. 'David'
sometimes goes with the Prophets (Ps.-Chrys., Junilius, Augustine, Isidorus),
and the group is then regarded as 'Salomonic,' or 'hortatory.' Lists which admit
the two books of Wisdom usually join them to this subdivision (Ebedjesu, Carth.,
Augustine, Innocent, Cod. Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius, Isidorus). The
internal order of the Salomonic books varies (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles;
Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs; Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes); the
Wisdoms usually follow, but sometimes break the sequence of the three canonical
books. Much difficulty seems to have been felt as to the place of Job; the book
normally appears in connexion with the poetical books, either last or first, but
it is sometimes placed among the histories (Augustine, Innocent, Cod Clarom.,
Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), or after the Prophets (Origen). The position of
Esdras is not less uncertain; its normal place is after Chronicles, but it is
also found before or after the Prophets (Melito, Epiph., John of Damascus, Cod.
Barocc.), or in connexion with a group of the apocryphal histories (cod. A,
Carth., Augustine, &c.). Esther is still more erratic; sometimes it follows
the poetical books, sometimes the Prophets, sometimes the histories;
not a few lists place it among the antilegomena, or omit it altogether. When
admitted to a place in the Canon, it is usually to be found at or near the end
(Origen, Epiphanius, Amphilochius, John of Damascus, Hilary, Carth., Cod.
Clarom., Ps.-Gelasius, Cassiodorius), and in company with apocryphal books,
especially Judith66 and Tobit (codd. BאA, Chelt., Carth., Augustine, and the later Latin lists67). It seems as if the doubt which the Jewish authorities
felt with regard to this book was inherited by many Christians. On the other
hand Cyril, who represents the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem, makes it
the twelfth of the canonical books, and in the Laodicene list it stands
eighth.
Except in cases where an old or well-defined tradition fixed the
internal order of groups of books, there was clearly room for every possible
variation so long as the books were written on separate rolls. The cista
might serve to keep a group together, but it offered no means of fixing the
relative order of its contents. In the codex, on the other hand, when it
contained more than one writing, the order was necessarily fixed68, and the scribe unconsciously created a tradition which
was followed by later copyists. The 'transition to vellum,' and the consequent
transition from the roll to the codex, does not seem to have been general before
the fourth century, although in the case of Biblical MSS. it may,have begun a
century earlier69; and thus we may regard our earliest uncial codices as
prototypes of the variations in order which mark the mass of later MSS. A single
instance may suffice. It has been stated that Esther is frequently found in
company with Judith and Tobit. But these books occur in varying order in the oldest MSS.; in
B we have Esther, Judith, Tobit, but in א A, Esther, Tobit, Judith; a favourite Western order is
Tobit, Esther, Judith (Chelt., Augustine, Innocent, Gelasius, Cassiodorius,
Isidorus); another, sanctioned at Carthage in 397, is apparently more common in
MSS. of the Vulgate, viz., Tobit, Judith, Esther70. Such variations, resting on no obvious principle, are
doubtless ultimately due to the judgement or caprice of a few scribes, whose
copies supplied the archetypes of the later Greek MSS. and the daughter-versions
of the Septuagint.
LITERATURE. On the general subject of this chapter the
student may consult C. A. Credner, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons (ed. Volkmar,
Berlin, 1860); Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons, ii., p. 143 ff.
(Erlangen, 1890); B. F. Westcott, Hist. of the Canon of the N. T.6 (Cambridge, 1891); W. Sanday, The Cheltenham List, in
Studia Biblica, iii., pp. 226—243 (Oxford, 1891); Buhl, Kanon u. Text
des A. T. (Leipzig, 1891); H. E. Ryle, Canon of the O.T. (London,
1892); E. Preuschen, Analecta (Leipzig, 1893); H. L. Strack, art.
Kanon des. Alten Testamentes in P.R.E.3 ix.
741—767.
I.e. חׂמֶשׁ פִּקּוּדִים 'fifth of the precepts'; cf. the Mishnic
title פִּקּוּדִים סֵפֶר (Ryle,
Canon of the O. T., p. 294). Jerome transliterates the initial word,
vayedabber; cf. Epiph. (Lagarde, Symmicta ii. 178), οὐαϊδαβήρ ἥ ἐστιν Ἀριθμῶν. The book is
also known as בְּטִדְבַּר.
Of the canonicity of these two books
Augustine speaks with some reserve: "de quadam
similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur . . . qui tamen quoniam in
auctoritatem recipi meruerunt inter propheticos numerandi sunt."
The text of Preuschen has been followed; it
is based on a St Gall MS. which appears to be less corrupt than the Cheltenham
MS. used by Mommsen and others.
So in Cohn-Wendland's edition (iii. 4, 57,
230); in ii. 271 this title is ascribed to Moses, although ἐξαγωγή does not like ἔξοδος occur in the Alexandrian version of the book.
Ἡ Ἐξαγωγή was also the title of
the Hellenist Ezekiel's poem on the Exodus (see below, p. 371).
Sometimes in a simple transliteration, as
Genesis &c. Tertullian has Arithmi but in Cyprian the Latin
Numeri is already used; see Burkitt, O. L. and Itala, p. 4.
Dr Sanday (in Studia Biblica, iii. p.
240) regards this as Palestinian, identifying it with Cyril's method. But Cyril
begins with a dodecad (δωδεκάτη ἡ
Ἐσθήρ· καὶ τὰ μὲν Ἱστορικὰ ταῦτα).
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah appears to have been
originally a single book. But while Ezra and Nehemiah are still joined in the
Greek Bible, Chronicles stands by itself both in and , and in it follows Nehemiah and forms the last book of the
Canon (cf. Mt. xxiii.
35, and see Barnes Chronicles, in the Cambridge Bible, pp.
x.—xiii.).
Jerome, Prol. Gal.: "quinque a plerisque libri duplices aestimantur." As the
twenty-two books answered to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, so
these 'double books' were thought to correspond to the 'double letters,' i.e.
those which had two forms (כ ,מ ,נ ,פ
,צ). The 'double books were not always identical in different lists; see
Sanday, op. cit. p. 239.
Zahn offers a suggestion, to which Sanday
inclines, that the writer refers to the Excerpta ex Theodoto which are
partly preserved in the works of Clement of Alexandria.
Already cited freely by Josephus as an
authority for the history of the period. Origen, it should be added, regards 1,
2 Esdras as a single volume (Ἔσδρας
πρώτη, δευτέρα ἐν ἑνί).
The non-canonical books (τὰ ἔξω) are however carefully distinguished from
real apocrypha when the latter are mentioned; e.g. in the stichometry of
Nicephorus, and in the list of the 'Sixty Books.'
Ib. p. 122: "no papyrus roll of Homer
hitherto discovered contains more than two books of the Iliad. Three short
orations fill the largest roll of Hyperides."
Ruth is attached to 1 Regn. in the Cheltenham
list, and Augustine inclines to this arrangement (see Sanday, 1.c., p.
242). The result was to create a Heptateuch; for the word cf. J. E. B.
Mayor, The Latin Heptateuch, p. xxxvi. R. Peiper's text of the
Heptateuchos, to which Prof. Mayor refers (p. xxxiv.), appeared in the
Vienna Corpus scr. eccl. lat. vol. xiii. (1895).
The proximity of Esther to Judith in many
lists is perhaps due to the circumstance that in both books the central figure
is a woman; cf. p. 213 (right-hand column).
See Kenyon, Palaeography of papyri, p.
119 f.; Sanday, l.c. Papyrus was freely used for codices in Egypt during
the third century; cf. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. p.
2.