De Moor II:13: The Canon of Scripture, Part 2

β.  Our AUTHOR subjoins a similarly diverse Division of the Books of the Old Testament, both among the Jews, and among the Christians.  For they are divided:

                             a.  Either by Dichotomy into Moses and the Prophets, that is, the writings of both by metonymy of the efficient, or the Law and the Prophets, with the Books of Moses thus denominated from the more highly regarded part of the argument of the same, namely, the Legal.  And this division is scriptural, resting upon the authority of the Lord Himself and the Apostles; see Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:29; 24:27; Acts 26:22; 28:23.  Moses is reckoned separately, because he is the fount of all sacred doctrine, which the others illustrated, and of the Canon by which the writings and books of others were to be proved.  To this prince of the Prophets are joined the rest of the Prophets, as his successors and interpreters.

                             b.  Or by Trichotomy, which was the customary division of the Jews, which, whether it has a foundation in the Sacred Codex, is disputed.  JOSEPHUS, in the place cited above, book I, contra Apionem, page m. 1036, presents a peculiar τριχοτομίαν/trichotomy of the Sacred Books, accommodated to his scope/goal.  Namely, he is defending against Apion the Antiquity of his Race.  This Antiquity he builds upon the integrity of the Jewish histories, which, says he, were preserved with the highest care and diligence; and, since these are chiefly exhibited in the sacred Books, he exhibits a catalogue of them by classes, enumerating five Books of Moses, thirteen Books of Prophets, and finally four Books, which are said to contain Hymns unto God and Precepts of human life.  Now, he says that Moses wrote histories from the creation of the world unto the end of his own life; he relates that the Prophets consigned to writing the matters conducted of the following ages unto Artaxerxes:[1]  and, when Books remained, which were not easily able to be referred to the class of Histories, he assigns to them a third class apart from the rest.  If now we should attend to this scope of Josephus, together with the recension of the Canon of the Jews made by the Christians that most nearly reach the age of Josephus, with regard to the same the Canonical Books are to be divided in this way:  That the five Books of Moses make up the First Class is a matter beyond controversy.  The thirteen Books of Prophets are to be enumerated in this manner, according to the order in which they follow one another in our Bibles:

1.  Joshua,

2.  Judges with Ruth,

3.  Two of Samuel,

4.  Two of Kings,

5.  Two of Chronicles,

6.  Ezra with Nehemiah,

7.  Esther,

8.  Job [consult FINDLAY’S[2] Defensionem Sacræ Scripturæ et Josephi adversus de Voltaire, part I, section VI, pages 48-56],

9.  Isaiah,

10.  Jeremiah with Lamentations,

11.  Ezekiel,

12.  Daniel,

13.  Δωδεκαπρόφητον, the Book of the Twelve Prophets.

              The four remaining Poetic and Moral Books are the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song.

              From these things it is clear that Daniel is numbered among the Prophets by Josephus; but it is not thus evident whether Josephus did this according to his own, private opinion, or according to the custom publicly received at that time:  if the latter be correct, with this superior argument the exclusion of Daniel from the number of the Prophets among today’s Jews would be able to be opposed.

              For another Division of the sacred Books everywhere obtains among the Jews, which Division, noted by JEROME, is found in his Prologo galeato, already cited numerous times.  According to this Division:

              1. The תורה/Torah/Law, does indeed occupy the first place, that is, the five Books of Moses, called in Greek the πεντάτευχος/Pentateuch, that is, the fivefold βίβλος/book, that is, a Book divided into five scrolls; called among the Hebrews חֲמִשָּׁה חוּמָּשִׁים, Chamishah Chumashim, that is, five quinternions, five fifth parts; and each Book of the Pentateuch is called by them an חוּמָשׁ/Chumash, a fifth-part, because it constitutes a fifth-part of the Pentateuch.

              2.  The נביאים/Prophets compose the second part, whom they divided into ראשונים/former, so called because, a.  these Prophets and the matters commemorated therein, as far as the greater part is concerned, precede in time the latter Prophets; b.  because they relate matters conducted even earlier:  now, these are the historical Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.  These are followed by the אחרונים/ latter Prophets, who, a.  are latter with respect to time than the others just now mentioned, b.  neither do they so much relate matters conducted in the past, as indeed predict the favors and judgments of God in the future:  these are enumerated as three גדולים/greater/major, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel:  and as twelve קטנים/lesser/minor, not that they are lesser with respect to weight of argument or authority, but, as mentioned, on account of the small mass of the scrolls; and, lest they be scattered on account of this, they all were joined together in one scroll.

              3.  Finally, among the Jews follow the כתובים, the Writings κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, par excellence; Hagiographa, or, the Holy Writings, in JEROME’S oft cited Prologo, The third order contains the Hagiographa, etc.; γραφεῖα, the Writings, in, among other places, EPIPHANIUS’ libro de mensuris et ponderibus, opera, tome 2, page 162, where he mentions τὰ καλοῦμενα γραφεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ Ἁγιόγραφα λεγόμενα, those called the Writings, but by some the Hagiographa; likewise EPIPHANIUS, in his Hæresi XXIX, tome I, page 122, where concerning the Ναζωραίοις, or Nazoræans,[3] he writes, Οὐ γὰρ ἀπηγόρευται παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς νομοθεσία καὶ Προφῆται καὶ γραφεῖα, τὰ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις καλοῦμενα βιβλία, for among them are not rejected the legislation, and the Prophets, and the writings, which among the Jews are called the sacred books.  Now, they relate that the Books included in this category are thus called, because they were not delivered by mouth, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were immediately captured with the pen and rendered in letters:  or because they were dictated by the Prophetic Spirit, not by visions, ecstasies, etc., but by the immediate influx of the Spirit, with the senses and mental operations of the authors unimpaired, שֶׁחֵם כְתוּבִים בְּרוּחַ הַקֺּדֶשׁ, He stamped the Writings by the Holy Spirit.  Now, they are the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, the Book of Job, the Song of Songs, the Book of Ruth, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Solomon’s Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and two Books of Chronicles.  Among these, the חֲמֵשׁ מְגִלּוֹת, the five Megilloth, five Little Books, are Feast-Day Books, which were wont annually to be read publicly in the Synagogues after the Parashah;[4] the Song on the feast of Passover; Ruth on the feast of Weeks; Lamentations on the ninth day of the month Ab, or July, on which it is delivered by tradition that both Temples were burned; Ecclesiastes in the month of September on the feast of tabernacles; and Esther on the feast of Purim, on the fourteenth and fifteenth day of February:  see Tractate Sopherim, chapter XIV, § 18, 19.  Hence that Scroll of the five Little Books, plucked from the midst of the Hagiographa, quite often is immediately subjoined to the Pentateuch for the use of the Synagogue, set before all the Prophets.

              The foundation of this τριχοτομίας/trichotomy the Jews place in the diverse degrees and modes of the revelation whereby they were written.  For they acknowledge differing degrees of θεοπνευστίας/ inspiration, of which the highest falls to Moses, the degree called פֶּה אֶל־פֶּה, mouth to mouth:[5]  the next belongs to the Prophets, the degree called נְבוּאָה/prophecy:[6]  the lowest that is taught by רוּחַ הַקֺּדֶשׁ, the Holy Spirit, belongs to θεοπνεύστων/inspired men that, although they did not see dreams and visions, nevertheless felt a divine ability resting upon them, and, with this exciting and suggesting words of praise and confession, or other divine things, spoke or wrote:  and they say that the Writers of the כתובים/Hagiographa rejoiced in this influx of revelation.  Concerning the distinction between נְבוּאָה/prophecy and רוּחַ הַקֺּדֶשׁ, the Holy Spirit, see what things are mentioned out of Kimchi[7] by WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, preface, § 14.

              Concerning the antiquity of this Judaic Partitioning we would be able more easily to judge, if it were established with certainty that the Lord had regard to it in Luke 24:44, as learned Men maintain:  of whom some at the same time think that out of Matthew 23:35 it is sufficiently proven that the Lord, according to the usual division of the Codex at that time, considers the Book of Genesis as the first,[8] and 2 Chronicles as the last,[9] of Sacred Scripture.  With respect to Luke 24:44, it is not improperly observed that, if the τριχοτομία/trichotomy of Books were at that time in common use, the Lord would have made mention of it elsewhere also:  but actually He constantly adheres in His speech to a διχοτομίᾳ/dichotomy, making mention of Moses and the Prophets; which Luke himself had also done just a little before in verse 27:  therefore, there appears to be a specific reason lying beneath, as to why the Lord made mention here of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; which probably is found in this, that the Book of Psalms exhibits so many and such illustrious prophecies concerning the sufferings and glorification of the Messiah:  wherefore, to this so eminent book, otherwise comprehended among the Prophetic Books, above the rest, the Lord wills attention to be paid principally and most diligently; All things, says He, which concerning me were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and especially in the Psalms:[10]  as the Angel was instructing the women; tell His disciples and Peter, who nevertheless was not to be separated from the disciples of the Lord, Mark 16:7.[11]

IKEN, Dissertation XXIII in Dissertationibus philologico-theologicis, does indeed think that in Luke 24:44 traces of a tripartite Division of the Codex of the Old Testament are found, unto the third part of which the Book of Psalms is to be referred; yet he does not think that thence it is able to be gathered that this Division is clearly the same with the modern Division of the Jews, and that Daniel also was already at that time dislodged from the order of Prophets in the Hebrew Bible:  neither does he believe that it can be admitted that the Psalms are here put in the place of the entire order of Hagiographa; but from the third portion of the Sacred Books it is affirmed that the Book of Psalms alone is cited, since it was especially fit for proving the double State of Messiah, of Emptying and of Exaltation; and then he illustrates this method of citation especially out of Maimonides:[12] see that Dissertation.

              And, although the observation concerning the Books of Chronicles as the last in the Bible be not disagreeable for illustrating of Matthew 23:35, yet it is not necessarily concluded that today’s τριχοτομίαν/ trichotomy had already obtained at that time.  1.  The Lord is able to contemplate the second Book of Chronicles as the last of the Historical Books, in which mention is made of a perpetrated murder of this sort.  2.  Or it is also possible to compare the murder of Zachariah with that of Abel on account of the agreement of that notable circumstance, that, just as the blood of Abel is said to cry to God from the ground, Genesis 4:10, so also dying Zachariah is reported to have said, The Lord will look upon and require it, 2 Chronicles 24:22:  consult CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter XVII, § 1, pages 440-442.

              That this Division is certainly of divine origin, and that he acknowledges Ezra, together with the Men of the Great Synagogue, as the author, which ELIAS LEVITA in the preface of the book Masoreth hammasoreth relates without any proof, no reason urges.  Then the Greek Version would probably have followed this division also.  Neither does Jesus ben Sirach make mention expressly of this division in the preface of his Book, which is called Ecclesiasticus, when he made mention of the Law, and of the Prophets, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων, and of others that have followed their steps; likewise of the Law, and of the Prophets, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων, and of other books of our fathers:  since by these Books of a third order he understands rather human writings of pious Men, who lived after the times of the Prophets.  In the time of EPIPHANIUS and JEROME, it is clearly evident from their writings that this partitioning of the Codex was by then common; indeed, unto what age this division might climb, we do not determine.  According to VRIEMOET, Thesis controversa ex Antiquitatibus Israeliticis XIV, “The Partition of the Sacred Codex into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, appears to have been received into use already in the time of Christ.”

              We rather affirm that this Judaic Partitioning of the Codex suffers from various disadvantages, on account of which it comes to be disapproved; and that hence moreover its human origin is evident.  There are those that think that this Judaic division is able to be defended, yet in such a way that they believe that its foundation and origin is situated, not in diverse degrees of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration, but in the diverse manners of life and offices of the Writers.  That is to say, the תורה/Torah/Law is named and reckoned separately, because it was written by the one and only Law-giver.  The נביאים/Prophets, which were written by Men, publicly engaged in the prophetic office, in such a way that they gave themselves to the direction, teaching, and reformation of the Church.  The כתובים/Hagiographa, the Writers of which, although not of the order of Prophets, but rather devoted to another manner of life, were yet equipped for this service of writing by a peculiar afflatus of the Holy Spirit, like David and Solomon as Kings, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Mordecai as courtiers, Job as a prince, and Ezra as an expert in Law.  Thus DRUSIUS,[13] AMAMA, and others.  But this, 1.  is asserted contrary to the wishes of the Jews, among whom ABARBANEL[14] expressly denies that these Books were so named with respect to their authors, but rather with respect had to the gift of writing, and the degree of influx.  2.  This division is not able to be justified even in this way, while they hold the authors of Ruth and Lamentations as those that discharged the function of prophesying, and yet were separated from the Prophetic writings; to which writings, on the other hand, are assigned the Books of Judges and Jeremiah, written by the same authors.

              If the Judaic Division of the Codex of the Old Testament were to be approved, of all opinions concerning this matter that of FRANCISCUS JUNIUS would be especially satisfying to me, which he sets forth in Oratione III de Fœdere et Testamento Dei, columns 37, 38, opera, tome 2, in the following words:  “The Third division of the Old Testament the orthodox Church formerly received from the Jews, who, according to the rationale of the time in which the books were gathered into one corpus, and deposited in the treasure-chamber of the Church, divided that into four classes.  The first class is that which the Jews call Torah, that is, the Law—for these books were written in the desert, in the presence of God, who was commanding, dictating, approving, and confirming them in the sight of the entire Church, in a certain extraordinary and singular manner.  In this class are contained the books of Genesis, etc.  Belonging to the second class are—the former Prophets:  which before the Babylonian deportation were written, collected, and stored in the treasure-chamber of the Church, and they also narrated with historical reliability the former matters, that is, matters conducted previously.  In this class are the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.  Belonging to the third class are—the latter Prophets:  which were written, partly indeed before the Babylonian deportation, partly after it, but then they were united into one body, and deposited in the treasure-chamber of the Church (unless the conjecture deceive me), by Ezra and his congregation.  Unto this class pertain Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor Prophets.  There is a fourth class, which the Jews call כתובים/Kethubim—the medley of these books was drawn together from diverse times; but some, already formerly begun, were completed in the last time, others were written after the time of the captivity here and there in a foreign land and presented to the returning Church, and finally others were composed in Judea in the last times, and were laid up in the treasure-chamber of the Church (if we are able to conjecture anything) in the times of that Judas Maccabeus,[15] when the Church was renovated and catching its breath.  Belonging to this class are Job, whose history was written abroad; Psalms and Proverbs, which books were written in a variety of circumstances and were gathered from various parts, and were finally finished at that time; Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, which books belong to the last times; and last of all, Chamesh Megilloth, that is, the five scrolls, which, although belonging to different ages, were also joined together for the sake of convenience during that period.  Now, they are the Song of Songs, Ruth, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.”

              But we rather reject this Division:  1.  On account of its slippery foundation, inasmuch as diverse degrees of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration are supposed.  We acknowledge various sorts of prophetic visions and perceptions:  but here the sacred Amanuenses are considered, not in the mode of prophetic revelation, but in the act of writing; in which all were strong in the same degree of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration, and equally enjoyed the immediate and infallible counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  2.  On account of the injury thus inflicted upon the divine dignity of the Books of the second and especially of the third orders, which, according to EPHODEUS in the preface to his Grammar,[16] are of so much less dignity than the Law that the Law deserves to be compared to the Holy of Holies, the Prophets to the Holy Place, and the Hagiographa only to the Courtyard.  3.  On account of the unreasonable separation of the Historical Books.  For no reason is able to be given as to why the Historical Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, are recorded among the Prophetic Books, and are separated from Books of the same subject matter, Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, etc.  4.  Especially on account of the rejection of Daniel from the order of Prophetic Books, while nevertheless, a.  it is clearly assigned to the Prophets by the Lord Himself, Matthew 24:15:  b.  while the Jews everywhere deny that Daniel was a Prophet, to whom revelation came בנבואה, by the Prophetic gift and influx, on the other hand JOSEPHUS himself, Antiquities of the Jews, book X, chapter XII, quite frequently calls him a προφήτην/prophet, pages 352, 354, sets him forth as ἕνα τινὰ τῶν μεγίστων προφητῶν, a certain one of the greatest prophets, page 353, and thence also magnifies his excellence in the Prophetic office, page 354; for he not only foretold future events like the other Prophets, but he also precisely defined the time upon which the fulfillment of those prophecies were destined to fall.  Neither, c.  are the Marks of a truly great Prophet able to be denied to Daniel:  these are, for example, a.  to receive Revelations immediately from God through visions and dreams, Numbers 12:6; but this is related expressly enough to have happened to Daniel, Daniel 7:1, 2, etc.; 8:1, 2, etc.; 10:1, 5-9, etc.:  b.  to communicate the Revelations received from God by mouth or writing to the Church, Jeremiah 23:28; but Daniel fulfilled this, Daniel 7:1, etc.  c.  It also especially belongs to the Prophets to prophesy concerning the Messiah and His days, Acts 3:24; but Daniel fulfilled this in an exceptional way, even indicating more clearly than all the rest the time of the coming Messiah, Daniel 9, to which are added most excellent prophecies concerning the destinies and successions of the kingdoms, Daniel 7; 8; 11.  Therefore, Daniel was a Prophet, and rejoiced in the gift of prophecy, which the Jews attempt to subvert only by inane dreams, of which nothing is pertinent to make mention:  WITSIUS dispels the same, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XIX, § 21-25.  Against the unbelieving that either maintain that the Book of Daniel was written only after the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and thus contains history, not Prophecy; or has at least been interpolated to an uncommon extent; goes PIERRE-DANIEL HUET, Demonstratione Evangelica, proposition IV, concerning the Prophecy of Daniel, § 11-14, pages 412-418; likewise WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XIX, § 30-42; LILIENTHAL, Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter V, § 53-67, part 1, pages 444-466; STAPFER, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 293-312, pages 1079-1086; but also HENDRIK LUSSING, de Necessitate Religionis in genere, et Certitudinis Christianæ in specie, part II, dissertation VII, chapter III, § 910-934, pages 398-425, in which he also contends for the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the Book of Daniel from the Prophecies occurring in the same.  CARPZOV, Introductione ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter VI, § 1-3, 6, pages 227-230, 235, 237, 242-244, 251-255, urges one and another thing just now asserted on behalf of the Prophet Daniel, and his Prophetic Book, and the Biblical Order of the same, at greater length.  5.  Finally, it militates against that Judaic Division of the Old Testament that it is believed that Malachi sealed the Codex of the Old Testament with the final words of his Prophecy, Malachi 4:4-6; whence it appears that his books ought to occupy the final position in the Old Testament, no less than Revelation is placed in the last place in the New Testament, which likewise is observed to be sealed by John in Revelation 22:18-20.

                             c.  If we consider the Christian, Ecclesiastical Divisions of the Codex of the Old Testament, GREGORY NAZIANZEN in his Carminibus also divided the entire Old Testament by a τριχοτομίαν/ trichotomy into Books Historical, Poetic, and Prophetic.  For him the Historical Books are those of Moses and the rest, which follow unto Job.  The Poetic Books:  Job with the Psalms and the Books of Solomon.  The five Prophetic Books:  first the twelve minor Prophets; then Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.  But, although in large part the Pentateuch be historical, yet generally it was wont to be called the Law in Sacred Scripture, and to be considered as a syntagma of especially legal Books.

Epiphanius

              EPIPHANIUS distributed the Old Testament into four Pentateuchs and one binary, in his libro de mensuris et ponderibus, chapter IV, opera, tome 2, page 162.  For him the first Pentateuch is of βίβλων νομικῶν, Law Books.  A Pentateuch στιχήρης follows, of Books written in verse, which are Job, Psalms, and three Books of Solomon.  Then he enumerates the third Pentateuch of Books, which are called γραφεῖα, the Writings, and by some ἁγιόγραφα/Hagiographa:  for him these are the Book of Joshua, of Judges with Ruth, of Chronicles first and second, of Kings first and second, and finally of Kings third and fourth, with the binaries of Books compacted into one volume.  To him the fourth Pentateuch is Prophetic, into which he places the δωδεκαπρόφητον, Book of the Twelve Prophets, with the four major Prophets.  Then he observes a binary of Books to remain, which are the Books of Ezra and Esther.  Which same division is held by JOHN OF DAMASCUS, Concerning the Orthodox Faith, chapter XVIII, page m. 348, who, when he mentions Ezra and Esther in the last place, also observes concerning Ezra:  τοῦ Ἐσδρὰ αἱ δύο, εἰς μίαν συναπτομέναι βίβλον, the two of Ezra are joined together in one book.

                             d.  “Finally,” says our AUTHOR, “the Scholastics, with many of our Theologians, not incorrectly distribute these Books into Legal, Historical, Dogmatic, which are also Poetic, and Prophetic.”  Thus the enumerate five Legal Books of Moses; twelve Historical Books from Joshua to Job; five Dogmatic and Poetic Books, which are Job, Psalms, and three Books of Solomon, and finally seventeen Prophetic Books.  Which quadripartite division best answers to the thematic ordering of the Books, which are found arranged according to this order in the Greek Version of the Septuagint, the Latin Versions of the Vulgate and Junius and Tremellius,[17] and other Versions, and our Dutch Bible.  Neither did ABARBANEL have sufficient reasons on account of which he might ridicule this division of the Christians in his preface to his Commentary on Joshua:  see Reverend BEELS’ Bybeloeffeningen, page 14.

[1] Artaxerxes I, thought by Josephus to be the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, reigned over Persia from 465 to 424 BC.

[2] Robert Findlay (1721-1814) was a minister of the Church of Scotland, serving as Professor of Divinity at Glasgow from 1782 to 1814.  He labored in the defense of the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture against the rising tide of Rationalism.

[3] Although orthodox Christians have been called Nazarenes by the Jews, Epiphanius is addressing a form of Judaizing Christianity.  Unlike the Ebionites, the Nazarenes held orthodox views concerning the person of Christ, but they tenaciously held to the ceremonial law of Moses.  Remnants of this sect seem to have survived into the twelfth century.

[4] The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament is divided into Parashot/ sections, around which the public readings are organized.

[5] Numbers 12:6-8; see also Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:10.

[6] 2 Chronicles 9:29; 15:8.

[7] From the preface of Kimchi’s commentary on the Psalms.

[8] Genesis 4:8.

[9] 2 Chronicles 24:19-22.

[10] Greek:  πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσέως καὶ προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς περὶ ἐμοῦ.

[11] Greek:  εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ.

[12] Moses Maimonides, or Rambam (1135-1204), is reckoned by many to be the greatest Jewish scholar of his age.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, Rabbinic tradition, natural science, and Aristotelian philosophy, Maimonides demonstrates great command and almost equal facility.

[13] Joannes Drusius (1550-1616) was a Protestant scholar; he excelled in Oriental studies, Biblical exegesis, and critical interpretation.  He served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Oxford (1572), at Louvain (1577), and at Franeker (1585).

[14] Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) was one of the great rabbis of his age and a stalwart opponent of Christianity, in spite of the danger.  He holds fast to a literal interpretation of the Scripture, over against Maimonides’ philosophical allegorizing.

[15] Judas Maccabeus was a Jewish priest.  Provoked by the religious oppressions of the Seleucid Empire, he led a revolt, the successful prosecution of which brought a measure of independence, the cleansing of the Temple, and reformation.  The principal years of his service were 167 to 160 BC.

[16] Profiat Duran (c. 1350-c. 1415) was a Spanish Jew and universal scholar.  His interests included medicine, history, philosophy, polemical theology, and grammar.  He wrote a Hebrew grammar entitled Ma’aseh Efod, whence he is sometimes called Ephodeus.

[17] John Immanuel Tremellius (1510-1580) converted from Judaism to Christianity and quickly embraced the principles of the Reformation.  He taught Hebrew at Strasbourg (1541) and at Cambridge (succeeding Paul Fagius in 1549), and served as Professor of Old Testament at Heidelberg (1561).  Together with Franciscus Junius, he produced a major Latin translation of the Scriptures.