De Moor II:14: The Canon and the Church, Part 1

So that this Material of the Composition of Sacred Scripture, or the θεόπνευστοι/inspired Books designed to direct faith and manners, might take the present Form of Canon, God saw to it that they were gathered gradually over time by the Church, were distinguished from ἀκανονίστοις/non-canonical Books, and were arranged in order.  It is not doubtful that the Lord, providently providing for those things that have regard unto the salvation of the Church, granted to the same the necessary helps unto this end:  in such a way that the θεόπνευστοι/ inspired Books, designed for the Canonical use of the Church, were able to be separated from others, both, 1.  by the Help of faithful Witnesses, to whom the same were delivered by θεοπνεύστοις/inspired Men and commended unto the use of the Church:  and, 2.  by Means of the writing or subscription in the Very Hand of the Holy Men, the Prophets or Apostles, whereby Codices of this sort were able sufficiently to be distinguished from others associated with the name of those, Galatians 6:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:17.  Whatever might have actually been the case concerning the σημείῳ/token/sign mentioned by Paul in this passage,[1] concerning which the Most Illustrious WOLF, in his Curis criticis et philologicis, on this passage, discoursing at length, deserves to be consulted, it is not able to be denied that that διακριτικὸν/distinguishing Sign, following the intention of Paul, was suited to distinguish the genuine Epistles of of the Apostle from the spurious, which may have been bearing his name, lest the minds of the faithful be readily disquieted by the same, by comparison with 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3.  3.  Doubtlessly the illuminating Grace of the Holy Spirit was added, so that they might recognize the innate κριτήρια/criteria/marks of Divinity, shining with their own light, in the sacred Books.  But, 4.  neither is the Extraordinary gift of Prophesy able to be denied to the Church at the time of the gathering of the Canon, which may have been granted to the Collectors of the Canon, as far as it was necessary in a matter of such importance to distinguish infallibly genuine and θεόπνευστα/inspired writings from the spurious and human.

              Certainly it is the same God, who did not deem it unsuitable to reveal from heaven His mysteries to men, who saw to it that His oracles were written down for the perpetual use of His beloved Church and as a norm of belief and practice ἀνυπεύθυνον, beyond human control, and who so marvelously preserved these divine writings; certainly the same, I say, would direct the collection and arrangement of the Sacred Canon by His providence, lest He lose His end, which He had proposed to Himself in the writing of the sacred volumes.

              Indeed, concerning the Collection and Sealing of the Old Testament, it is able to appear that it is to be labored so much less by us, since we find that Canon to be so often approved by the Lord and the Apostles in the New Testament that there is not able to be any hesitation concerning its authority.  For it is solemn thing for the Lord to appeal to Moses and the Prophets,[2] and to send the Jews to τὰς γραφὰς, the Scriptures, which they had:  we know that πᾶσαν/all that γραφὴν/Scripture is said to be θεόπνευστον/God-breathed by Paul, 2 Timothy 3:16, compared with verse 15,[3] and 2 Peter 1:21, upon which place see Commentarium meum; and that the Jews were commended by him as faithful witnesses in the delivery of the sacred Codices, Romans 3:1, 2.  But, as the divine authority of the Canon of the Old Testament is evident, likewise it would generally pertain to us, to the service of which particularly we would have an obligation to the Collection of the same.

              There is not time now, nor is it desirable, to relate at length all that the Talmudists and other Rabbis of the Jews, idly dreaming, pass on to us concerning the Great Synagogue of one hundred and twenty members, whose President was Ezra, and his, together with those Assessors, pains concerning the Sacred Codex:  in which undoubtedly many things are fabulous, which, nevertheless, owe their first origin to the care of sedulous Ezra with the contemporary Prophets concerning the Sacred Codex; but the history of which matter the Rabbis, according to their custom, pollute to a remarkable extent with fables.  Out of many others, I wish the BUXTORFS [the Elder’s Tiberiadem, chapter X; the Younger’s Librum Cosri, part III, chapter LXV, and the notes on that], SPANHEIM [Historiam Ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, epoch VIII, chapter V, columns 420, 421], LEYDEKKER [De Republica Hebræorum, tome 2, book VI, chapter VIII, IX, pages 481, 517], WITSIUS [Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book II, dissertation III, § 28, 29], BUDDEUS [Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, pages 796-803], CARPZOV [Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter V, section V, § 3, pages 215-218], and WOLF [Bibliothecam Hebraicam, part II, book I, section I, § 1-5, pages 2-9], to be consulted.

              I shall now briefly relate, what might most plausibly be held concerning the Canon of the Old Testament, augmented little by little, and finally sealed.  When Moses at the commandment of God had made an end of writing the Pentateuch עַד תֻּמָּם, unto the perfection of those (words), Deuteronomy 31:24,[4] he commanded the Levites in verses 25, 26, to store that book of the Lawמִצַּ֛ד אֲר֥וֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָ֖ה , at the side of the Ark of the covenant of Jehovah, so that in that place it might be kept in a case or chest designed for it.  This Pentateuch is the foundation of the whole Canon; that people was not able to have a doubtful confidence concerning it, being an ear-witness of many of the commandments given from heaven that were written therein, being an eye-witness of many of the histories that are narrated there, and of the miracles by which the Mosaic ministry was confirmed.  To this Pentateuch were gradually added other Canonical Books, written by Joshua [probably the Author of the Book, which bears his name, as far as the principal subject matter; although some brief insertions and the addition at the end were able to be added by another Prophetical Man afterwards, but, as it appears, before the death of David:  see CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter IX, § 4, 5, 7; the Dutch Annotations on Joshua 15:63, number 44; Joshua 19:47, number 27], Samuel, David [concerning the Collection of the Psalms, see BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section III, § 26, tome 2, pages 227b-231, where in particular the paradoxical opinion of PIERRE-DANIEL HUET concerning this matter is recalled to the anvil:  add CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros poeticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter III, § 5, pages 106-108], Solomon, and the several Prophets, who were commending themselves both by the divine vocation and Prophetic gift of those Men recognized among the people, and by their subject matter, divine and in conformity with the doctrine of Moses; with the intervening labor of the Priests and Levites, to whom the care was committed, as of teaching the people, so certainly of the sacred Books, comparing Deuteronomy 33:10; Malachi 2:4-7:  who appear to have commended to the people the θεοπνεύστους/inspired Books of this sort, to have presented them organized into a Canon of faith and manners, and to have kept their αὐτόγραφον/autograph in the same place with that Pentateuch.  Which place, with the number of Canonical Books increasing, within the Temple, 1.  perhaps was not so much the side of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, whither an approach was open only to the High Priest once a year:  but another place in one of the chambers of the Temple, where the other most precious κειμήλια/treasures were also kept, where, בְּבֵית יְהוָה, in the house of Jehovah, not necessarily in the Holy of Holies, in the time of Josiah the Mosaic autograph was found, 2 Kings 22:8:  see LUNDIUS’ Sanctuarium Judæorum, book II, chapter VIII, tome I, page 430; consult also § 12 above.  Certainly already in the time of Isaiah the Testimony was found with the Law, to which it was lawful for the Prophet to appeal as Canonical, Isaiah 8:20; consult § 4 above:  as also סֵפֶר יְהוָה, the book of Jehovah, which was to be searched, is mentioned by the same Prophet, Isaiah 34:16.  Thus the Hymns of David and of Asaph were used in public worship in the time of Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 29:30.  With whom reigning, the Men of Hezekiah, that is, wise men σύγχρονοι/contemporaneous with Hezekiah, assistants to the King in the reformation of the Church, especially the Prophets then living, appear to have recognized the Canon; to have joined the leaves introduced here and there into the testamentary receptacle, on which many Hymns of David and Proverbs of Solomon were read, into one certain scroll; and in this manner to the Proverbs that were brought together with Solomon living and perhaps by the King himself to have added many things, which were found to have been added after the former collection, by comparison with Proverbs 25:1.  Finally, after the return of the people from captivity, Ezra, intent upon the restoration both of divine worship and of the Jewish republic, labored very zealously, doubtlessly together with the contemporaneous Prophets, on the Sacred Canon of Scripture.  Ezra is praised, not only as סֹפֵ֤ר מָהִיר֙ בְּתוֹרַ֣ת מֹשֶׁ֔ה, a ready/skilled scribe in the Law of Moses, Ezra 7:6, but concerning him it is related in verse 10, that הֵכִ֣ין לְבָב֔וֹ לִדְר֛וֹשׁ אֶת־תּוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה וְלַעֲשֹׂ֑ת וּלְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּֽט׃, he had prepared his heart to seek the Law of Jehovah, and to do it; and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.  If we compare this with the necessity of that time, the work of Ezra and of the Prophets then living appears to have been, not only in teaching orally the things gathered to the people; but also in examining the Codices of the Canonical Books that survived after the burning of the Autographs with the temple; in correcting the errors of the same, which had crept in by the fault of copyists; and in commending the truly Canonical Books to the people, separately from others not pertaining to the Codex:  in augmenting thereafter the Canon with Books marked with the character of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration, of the Prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, who had just recently lived, besides some Histories; to which also Haggai, Zechariah, and indeed Ezra himself added their own Books.  After them Nehemiah and Malachi had the care of the same matter, who also by divine authority added their own volumes; after whose deaths no other was needed to seal and close the sacred Canon, to this point in good repair:  since Malachi supplied this, who, with the Canonical doctrine of faith and manners vindicated from the corruptions of the Levites and impiety of Libertines through his own Prophecy superadded to the rest of the Canon, finally closed the whole Canon together with his own Book with that illustrious seal, Malachi 4:4-6, in which he both sent the Jews back to the Mosaic Law as the foundation of all religion, and promised to the same, not some other Prophet of the Old Testament, but Elijah, that is, John the Baptist, the first divine herald of the New Testament:  Remember ye, says he, the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.  Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah:  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.  Upon which pericope see my Valedictory Sermon, delivered before the Church Ingensi, in the volume Gedachtenis, etc.  Hence Malachi is also called by the Jews theחותם הנביאים, Seal of the Prophets:  see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book II, chapter I, section II, page 489, and what things I taught above in § 11 of this Chapter.  Not as if the Church was so well constituted at that time, that it might be able to appear to require no further work of the Prophets:  but because the old Economy presses toward an end, and becomes weaker, and wanes with the glory of the Temple:  indeed, because souls were to be stirred up to desire and await with greater fervency the Messiah.  Now, it is not improbable that, so that the entirety of Ezra’s Autograph of the Canon might be the better preserved, a new Ark in turn was built, to be kept in the second Temple, in which they would have stored that Autograph.  What things I have thus narrated in a few words concerning the Gathering and Sealing of the Canon of the Old Testament, PETRUS DINANT sets forth and confirms in many, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 1-21, pages 742-775, and then upholds the same opinion against Spinoza, § 22-24, pages 775-782; against Simon and his public Scribes, § 25, 26, pages 782-789, comparing chapter III, § 20, pages 399-404; against the Batavian Theologians, as they call themselves, or, if you prefer, Le Clerc, § 27-42, chapter V, pages 789-828:  see also JOHANN HEINRICH HEIDEGGER’S Exercitationes Biblicas, VII, VIII; and in addition compare BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, page 1453-1455a.

              Meanwhile, to this collection of the old Canon, enlarged by Ezra and the contemporaneous Prophets, and to the sealing of the same by Malachi, it does not appear altogether to be opposed, that also at a later time, by the leading of the prophetic Spirit, who also at the time of the birth of Christ was dwelling in old Simeon,[5] they may have perhaps added one and another Song, having regard to the calamities of the Church of that age, to the Book of Psalms; and that one and another Genealogy may have been enlarged and brought down to a later time.  Just after the Captivity, before the sealing of the Canon by Malachi, Songs were able to be added to the rest of the Psalms, for example, Psalm 126; 137, as SPANHEIM points out, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, Epoch V, chapter VII, § 6, column 367, but only because, as that most illustrious Man adds, these were regarded as Prophetic.  But Psalm 44, and perhaps also Psalm 85, was able at a later time to be composed and added to the Canon.  Similarly it appears that at a later time the royal Genealogy of Zerubbabel, 1 Chronicles 3:17-24, was added; and also, indeed according to the opinion of many, the sacerdotal Genealogy of Nehemiah 12, see verses 11 and 22:  which, nevertheless, were not necessarily on that account inserted by another’s hand in this place after all the events of Nehemiah:  although many maintain this with PRIDEAUX in his An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, who without any good reason maintains that several entire Books of the Old Testament were at length received into the Canon in the time of Simeon the Just,[6] and that by this Simeon the Canon was at length fully sealed:  see PRIDEAUX’S An Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, book V, part I, columns 358, 359, in comparison with book VIII, columns 677, 678.  Yet you might here say that FRANCIS JUNIUS is no less liberal, when in his Oratione III de Fœdere et Testamento Dei, columns 37, 38, opera, tome 2, he does not hesitate to assert:  “The fourth division is what the Jews call Cethubim, the Writings, …a mixture of which books from diverse times was set in order:  but some books, already formerly begun, were finished in the final period; others were written after the time of the captivity here and there in foreign lands and were brought to the returning Church; finally, others were composed in Judea in the last times, and were entered into the treasury of the Church (if we are able to conjecture anything) in the times of that Judas Maccabeus, when the Church was renewed and breathing again.  Belonging to this division are Job, whose history was written abroad; the Psalms and Proverbs, which books were written through a course of manifold vicissitudes and gathered from various parts, and finally brought to completion at that time; Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, which were books of the last times; and finally the Chamesh Megilloth, that is, the five scrolls, which for the sake of convenience were conjoined together during that time, whatever the difference in age.  Now, these are the Song of Solomon, etc.”  On the other side, MARESIUS is perhaps too rigid in turn, when he, in his Systemate Theologico, locus I, § 37, relating the sealing of the Canon of the Old Testament by Malachi, subjoins in his scholarly notes, a. Whence it is proven how greatly he that imagines that some Psalms were written in the time of the Maccabees errs; and what additional things follow in that place.  With whom VRIEMOET completely agrees, who in his Thesi Scripturarum DLXXIII, and in his Adnotationibus ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, chapter IX, tome 2, page 141, relates that some Psalms, treating of the affliction of Antiochus Epiphanes, are vainly thought by some to have been composed finally in that age; and that to him this is, therefore, not at all to be approved, because at that time there were no prophets speaking by divine inspiration.  To me HEINRICH ALTING appears not to exceed modest limits, Theologia Elenctica nova, locus IX, controversy 2, page 470 at the end, writing:  In the end, although Prophets had already ceased in the Jewish Church, nevertheless the same sort of doctrine concerning the covenant of grace appears to have been preserved among the manifold corruptions of the sects, and is able to be evinced from Psalm 44:17, 18, and likewise from Psalm 85:3, 4, 7, written at that time.  JACOB ALTING follows in the footsteps of his father, Heptad VII, dissertation I, which is concerning the Persistence of the vernacular Hebrew Tongue to the Jews in the Babylonian Captivity, § 23, opera, tome 5, pages 196, 197, where, after he had recited Psalm 137, 126, and 83, in his judgment composed, the first by the Jewish exiles in Babylon itself, the second by the returnees soon after the release from captivity, the third in the age of Esther and Mordecai; he subjoins:  In the end, with Antiochus Epiphanes raging against the Jewish religion, and, what had never been done previously, with many therefore ending life in martyrdom, instead of falling away from their profession of faith, Psalm 44 was written down in the place of public prayers, and delivered to the Church; and perhaps also Psalm 89, which nevertheless does not at all depart from the ancient integrity of the Hebrew tongue:  the constancy of which to this point, namely, to the times of the Maccabees, they hence prove to have been in good repair.  HERMAN VENEMA[7] casts his vote in favor of this opinion, Commentario ad Danielis caput XI, § 166, pages 333-335, where you read:  An abundance of such Doctors was not wanting after the Babylonian exile, from the times of Ezra, …according to that bright and shining promise of God, Isaiah 30:20, etc.  ….To which also directly tends what God promised, that His Spirit was going to remain in the midst of the returnees, Haggai 2:5.  Finally, it is not foreign to this matter to observe that, at this very time, and to a greater extent thereafter, there were men, incited by divine inspiration, and driven by divine and heroic motions, who…composed and shared with the public sacred hymns, to instruct and strengthen the people, of whom express mention is made in 1 Maccabees 4:33 in the oration of Judas; cast them down with the swords of them that love thee, that those that know thy name might praise thee with songs.  Some of their hymns also survive in the Book of Psalms, as the learned have formerly observed.  CAMPEGIUS VITRINGA treads here with great prudence, who, in his Sacrarum Observationum, book VI, chapter XIII, discussing divine Revelations after the age of Malachi, § 4, relates:  Among the Learned Commentators of Divine things are those that are altogether persuaded that in the Bundle of Sacred Hymns are contained some Psalms composed about the time of the Affliction under Antiochus Epiphanes, which, as published by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and commended to us, we yet hold with the others; and the authority of which we revere no less than the best attested authority of the others.  I know that many hold this opinion:  but the weight is not the same.  But, after he had produced the authors and examples of this opinion, he subjoined this ἐπίκρισιν/judgment, § 5:  But what am I saying here?  I readily admit that I hesitate, as one that esteems it to be a matter of the very greatest difficulty to determine anything certain concerning some of the Psalms of this argument.  With respect to the two Psalms alleged by Alting:  they actually seem historically to narrate a matter conducted, more than prophetically a matter to be conducted; and, if you except the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, no one would readily say unto what other Calamity or Era of the Old Economy they might more agreeably be referred.  And yet this is hindered by the inscription of Psalm 89, which sets forth Ethan the Ezrahite as the author of that excellent Ode, whom it is well-known was famous in the age of David and Solomon.  That one thing especially holds me here in suspense….  But however this matter may stand:  it is evident that Learned men are not wanting that not without great appearance of reason judge that certain Sacred Hymns were elegantly composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit long after the time of Malachi, and were added to the others, as works of the same author and authority; but that this opinion is of the sort that may incur serious criticism; even if I to this point do not undertake to subscribe confidently to that.  One may apply to this what WITSIUS has, Miscellaneorum Sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XX, § 33, 34, speaking of Malachi as the last of the Prophets:  After his departure from this world, the spirit of Prophecy also departed, and it was, as it were, a stranger among the Jews, until the dawning of the Gospel began to break.  Yet, this is to be understood of the prophetic gift in such a way that it is not denied, therefore, that certain revelations came to certain individual persons, by which they might be informed concerning matters regarding either their own personal salvation or the common salvation.

With respect to the Genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3 previously mentioned, BUDDEUS, in his Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, tome II, page 817, says:  Indeed, the genealogy of Zerubbabel, 1 Chronicles 3:21-24, is extended far beyond the times of the Maccabees, whence anyone might be able to conclude that these books were written only after the time of Ezra.  But, that these were added by some holy man to continue the Davidic genealogy, is not anything we should doubt.  To which add what things JOHANN HEINRICH MICHAELIS,[8] in his uberioribus Adnotationibus in libros Hagiographos on 1 Chronicles 3:21, gathered from various Writers:  Moreover, what the learned VITRINGA taught, Observationum Sacrarum, book VI, page 338, “If the books of Chronicles are by Ezra, or at least not later than the time of Ezra, taking all into account it is to be established that, among others, the notable appendage, which enumerates the lineage of Zerubbabel unto more recent times, 1 Chronicles 3:21-24, was added to them.  For it embraces the succession of many generations, which runs far beyond the age of Ezra, even if you should say that he flourished under Mnemon.[9]”  So also think HEIDEGGER in his Enchiridio Biblico, page m. 169; D. LANGIUS in his Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, page 514.  And thus CARPZOV, Introductione ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, page 287, “What,” says he, “learned men have observed, that the genealogy of Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:21-24 is extended beyond the times of the Maccabees, almost to Christ, readily persuades us to believe that such things as these were added more recently after Ezra by a hand equally θεόπνευστον/ inspired, with this purpose, that the entire series of generations of the Davidic lineage might be exhibited in its place.”  And, on page 295, “Where the account, to be accommodated to the genealogies, leaves off, is not sufficiently evident; although it is plain that it reaches nearly to the times of Christ.”  In addition, compare in general the Dutch dissertation of Reverend AMBROSIUS DORHOUT, Pastor at Dokkum,[10] on the Genealogy of Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:15 and following, in Boekzaal der Geleerde Waereld, August 1759, chapter III, especially pages 223-230.

Finally, if you have regard to the Sacerdotal Genealogy, which is found in Nehemiah 12, concerning this SPANHEIM says, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, epoch VIII, chapter VI, § I, column 422, Certainly Nehemiah hardly prolonged his life unto Darius Codomannus,[11] and Jaddua the High Priest, which things were thereafter inserted in Nehemiah 12:11, 22.  For from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus,[12] at which time Nehemiah was already advance in age (for he returned with Zerubbabel), unto the beginning of Darius Codomannus, roughly one hundred and nineteen years passed.  Therefore, the Sacerdotal Genealogy was continued unto Jaddua, Nehemiah 12:22 (of whom Josephus treats in the events and history of Alexander the Great[13]), by some Prophetic man, or Scribe of the Jews, equipped for this by the authority of the Sanhedrin.  Indeed, there are those that think that the difficulty concerning the exceedingly protracted life of Nehemiah, if this entire Genealogy be from his hand, is able to be removed in such a way that they deny, therefore, that Nehemiah ought to be thought to have lived to the times of Alexander:  they believe that it is sufficient, if Nehemiah saw Jaddua in the Priesthood in the last times of Darius Nothus,[14] from whose reign unto the defeat of Codomannus by Alexander seventy-three years passed; whence, if, with Nehemiah passing, Jaddua is thought to have been thirty-one years old, he was able to meet Alexander in the one hundred and fourth year of his age, but Nehemiah to have died in the last time of Darius Nothus:  In favor of which opinion CARPZOV, in his Introductione ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter XIX, § 6, page 347, commends CALOVIUS, whom see in his Bibliis Illustratis, tome I, page 116, and on Nehemiah 12.  But others are not wanting that assert that to this chronological difficulty it is more rightly and certainly answered that that entire genealogical Table of the Priestly Succession, which occurs in Nehemiah 12:1-26, is not from the hand of Nehemiah; but that a fragment has been inserted in this Book by another hand for the completion of the history; inasmuch as in verse 26 there is a most distinct mention of Nehemiah the Satrap, called by his own name in the third person, who otherwise is wont to speak of himself in this Book in the first person:  they think that an inspection of the fragment itself persuades, as not cohering with the preceding and following narration.  Thus VITRINGA, Sacrarum Observationum, book VI, chapter VII, § 15; and his Prolegomena in Commentariis in Zachariam, § 9, pages 28, 29.  Ὁμόψηφοι, voting together with, him, Petavius,[15] Le Clerc, and Langius are commended by RAMBACH,[16] who also himself is found to be especially inclined to this, if you compare his Adnotationes in Nehemiah 12:11 with his Præfatione in Librum Nehemiæ, § 6, 10, in JOHANN HEINRICH MICHAELIS’ Adnotationibus uberioribus in libros Hagiographos.  We have already spoken of PRIDEAUX above.  In the marginal notes of the DUTCH VERSION on Nehemiah 12:11, without censure is mentioned this opinion of various men, according to which this genealogical series was here inserted after the death of Nehemiah, by some other man of God, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that the succession of the High Priests might be preserved in the church.

The difficulty concerning the exceedingly prolonged life of Nehemiah might vanish in another way, by assigning to him the Genealogy found in chapter 12, on account of the mention of Jaddua the High Priest there; if Nehemiah’s Jaddua, mentioned in Nehemiah 12:11, 22, was not that famous High Priest, indeed, not even from the Priestly family, but only pertained to the class of Levites:  which opinion CARPZOV tries to render plausible in the place just now cited.  But I am very concerned that Carpzov has not rightly reckoned the accounts here.  For, if you attend properly to the argument of Nehemiah 12, the account of the Levites, begun in verse 8, is then finished in verse 9:  but in verses 10 and 11 occurs the succession of High Priests, thence from Jeshua, under whom, in the time of Cyrus, the people were given leave to return from Babylon according to verse 1, unto Jaddua and Darius, either Nothus, or Codomannus, the last King of the Persians.  Now, from this Jeshua the High Priest, the Jeshua named among the first of the Levites in verse 8 is able to be completely distinguished.  Again, in verse 22, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua are not heads of paternal families among the Levites:  but names of the High Priests, in the times of which the first among the Levites and Priests were enrolled and recorded in a list, comparing verses 10 and 11 and chapter 13, verse 28:  compare PISCATOR,[17] BURMANN, HARTMAN on Nehemiah 12, RELAND in his Antiquitatibus Hebræorum Sacris, part II, chapter II, § 3, 6.

With respect to the Canon of the Old Testament and its collection, see also COCQUIUS’ Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus III, chapter V, page 46, and chapter IV, pages 33-37, where he undertakes the refutation of these theses of Hobbes:  1.  In the Old Testament, besides the Book of the whole Law, which is called Deuteronomy, all the way unto the Captivity the Jews held no other written Word as the Word of God.  2.  The Scripture of the Old Testament that we have today was not Canonical to the Jews, not even the Law, until they had renewed the covenant under Ezra.  3.  Before the Captivity, from the time in which the Book of the Law was lost (which appears to Hobbes to have happened in the time of Rehoboam) unto the time of Josiah,[18] the Jews had no written Word of God.

[1] 2 Thessalonians 3:17:  “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token (σημεῖον) in every epistle:  so I write.”

[2] See, for example, Luke 24:27, 44.

[3] 1 Timothy 3:15, 16:  “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures (τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα), which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is given by inspiration of God (πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”

[4] Deuteronomy 31:24:  “And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished (עַ֖ד תֻּמָּֽם׃)…”

[5] Luke 2:25-35.

[6] This is a reference to Simeon I, high priest in the early years of the third century BC.

[7] Herman Venema (1697-1787) was a student of Campegius Vitringa, specializing in Old Testament exegesis and Church History.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1723-1774).

[8] Johann Heinrich Michaelis (1668-1738) was a German Lutheran Theologian, Orientalist, and Philologist.  He served as Professor of Oriental Languages (1699) and of Theology (1709) at Halle.  Michaelis published an annotated edition of the Hebrew Bible and works on Hebrew grammar and accentuation.

[9] Artaxerxes II Mnemon, son of Darius II, was king of Persia from 404 BC to 358 BC.

[10] Ambrosius Dorhout (1699-1776) was a Dutch Reformed pastor.

[11] Darius III Codomannus (c. 380-330 BC) was the last king of Persia, ruling from 336 to 330 BC.

[12] Artaxerxes I Longimanus ruled from 465 to 424 BC.

[13] Antiquities of the Jews 11:8.

[14] Darius II Nothus reigned from 423 to 405 BC.

[15] Denis Petau (1583-1652) was a French Jesuit churchman and scholar.  His Opus de doctrina temporum carries on the chronological labors of Scaliger.

[16] Johann Jakob Rambach (1693-1735) was a German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.  He worked with Michaelis on Michaelis’ edition of the Hebrew Bible, writing commentaries for Ruth, Esther, Nehemiah, and others.

[17] John Piscator (1546-1626) was a learned Protestant divine.  He held the position of Professor of Divinity at Herborn (1584).  His German version was the first, complete and independent, since that of Martin Luther.  Through his career, his views changed from those of the Lutherans to those of the Calvinists, and from those of the Calvinists to those of the Arminians.  He remains widely regarded for his abilities as a commentator (Commentarii in Omnes Libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti).

[18] See 2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 34.