Examining the Remaining Old Testament Books Using the Previous Method

I now pass on to the remaining books of the Old Testament. Concerning the two books of Chronicles I have nothing particular or important to remark, except that they were certainly written after the time of Ezra, and possibly after the restoration of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus¹⁹. For in chap. ix. of the first book we find a reckoning of the families who were the first to live in Jerusalem, and in verse 17 the names of the porters, of which two recur in Nehemiah. This shows that the books were certainly compiled after the rebuilding of the city. As to their actual writer, their authority, utility, and doctrine, I come to no conclusion. I have always been astonished that they have been included in the Bible by men who shut out from the canon the books of Wisdom, Tobit, and the others styled apocryphal. I do not aim at disparaging their authority, but as they are universally received I will leave them as they are.

I now turn to the remaining books of the Old Testament. I have nothing notable or important to say about the two books of Chronicles, except when they were written. They were certainly written after Ezra’s time, and possibly after Judas Maccabaeus restored the Temple¹⁹. For chapter 9 of the first book lists the families who were the first to live in Jerusalem. Verse 17 names the gatekeepers, and two of those names also appear in Nehemiah. This shows that the books were certainly compiled after the city was rebuilt. I draw no conclusions about their actual author, authority, usefulness, or teachings. I have always been astonished that these books were included in the Bible by men who excluded others from the canon. Those excluded were the books of Wisdom, Tobit, and the other books called apocryphal. I do not mean to question the authority of Chronicles. But since these books are universally accepted, I will leave them as they are.

The Psalms were collected and divided into five books in the time of the second temple, for Ps. lxxxviii. was published, according to Philo-Judaeus, while king Jehoiachin was still a prisoner in Babylon; and Ps. lxxxix. when the same king obtained his liberty: I do not think Philo would have made the statement unless either it had been the received opinion in his time, or else had been told him by trustworthy persons.

The Psalms were collected and divided into five books during the time of the second temple. For according to Philo-Judaeus, Psalm 88 was published while King Jehoiachin was still a prisoner in Babylon. Psalm 89 was published when the same king was freed. I do not think Philo would have made this statement unless it was the accepted view in his time. Otherwise, trustworthy people must have told him.

The Proverbs of Solomon were, I believe, collected at the same time, or at least in the time of King Josiah; for in chap. xxv:1, it is written, "These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out." I cannot here pass over in silence the audacity of the Rabbis who wished to exclude from the sacred canon both the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and to put them both in the Apocrypha. In fact, they would actually have done so, if they had not lighted on certain passages in which the law of Moses is extolled. It is, indeed, grievous to think that the settling of the sacred canon lay in the hands of such men; however, I congratulate them, in this instance, on their suffering us to see these books in question, though I cannot refrain from doubting whether they have transmitted them in absolute good faith; but I will not now linger on this point.

I believe the Proverbs of Solomon were collected at the same time, or at least during King Josiah’s reign. For chapter 25:1 says, "These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out." I cannot remain silent here about the audacity of the Rabbis. They wanted to exclude both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes from the sacred canon and place them in the Apocrypha. In fact, they would have done so if they had not found certain passages praising the law of Moses. It is truly distressing to think that deciding the sacred canon was left to such men. Still, I congratulate them, in this case, for allowing us to read these books. Yet I cannot help doubting whether they passed these books down in complete good faith. But I will not dwell on that question now.

I pass on, then, to the prophetic books. An examination of these assures me that the prophecies therein contained have been compiled from other books, and are not always set down in the exact order in which they were spoken or written by the prophets, but are only such as were collected here and there, so that they are but fragmentary.

I turn, then, to the prophetic books. Examining these books convinces me that the prophecies they contain were compiled from other books. The prophecies are not always in the exact order in which the prophets spoke or wrote them. Instead, the books contain only prophecies gathered here and there, so the collections are fragmentary.

Isaiah began to prophecy in the reign of Uzziah, as the writer himself testifies in the first verse. He not only prophesied at that time, but furthermore wrote the history of that king (see 2 Chron. xxvi:22) in a volume now lost. That which we possess, we have shown to have been taken from the chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel.

Isaiah began to prophesy during Uzziah’s reign, as the writer himself states in the first verse. Isaiah not only prophesied then but also wrote a history of Uzziah (see 2 Chronicles 26:22). That volume is now lost. As we have shown, the text we have was taken from the chronicles of the kings of Judah and Israel.

We may add that the Rabbis assert that this prophet prophesied in the reign of Manasseh, by whom he was eventually put to death, and, although this seems to be a myth, it yet shows that they did not think that all Isaiah's prophecies are extant.

We may add that the Rabbis say this prophet prophesied during Manasseh's reign and was eventually executed by Manasseh. Although this story seems to be a myth, it shows that the Rabbis did not think all Isaiah's prophecies survive.

The prophecies of Jeremiah, which are related historically are also taken from various chronicles; for not only are they heaped together confusedly, without any account being taken of dates, but also the same story is told in them differently in different passages. For instance, in chap. xxi. we are told that the cause of Jeremiah's arrest was that he had prophesied the destruction of the city to Zedekiah who consulted him. This narrative suddenly passes, in chap xxii., to the prophet's remonstrances to Jehoiakim (Zedekiah's predecessor), and the prediction he made of that king's captivity; then, in chap. xxv., come the revelations granted to the prophet previously, that is in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and, further on still, the revelations received in the first year of the same reign. The continuator of Jeremiah goes on heaping prophecy upon prophecy without any regard to dates, until at last, in chap. xxxviii. (as if the intervening chapters had been a parenthesis), he takes up the thread dropped in chap. xxi.

The prophecies of Jeremiah presented as historical accounts are also drawn from various chronicles. For not only are these accounts piled together in confusion, without regard to dates, but the same story varies between passages. For example, chapter 21 tells us that Jeremiah was arrested because he predicted the city's destruction to Zedekiah, who consulted him. In chapter 22, the narrative suddenly shifts to the prophet's warnings to Jehoiakim, Zedekiah's predecessor. Jeremiah also predicts that king's captivity. Then, in chapter 25, we find revelations given to the prophet earlier, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. Still later come revelations received in the first year of the same reign. The writer who continued Jeremiah keeps piling prophecy upon prophecy without regard to dates. Finally, in chapter 38, he picks up the story left unfinished in chapter 21 (as if the intervening chapters had been an aside).

In fact, the conjunction with which chap. xxxviii. begins, refers to the 8th, 9th, and 10th verses of chap. xxi. Jeremiah's last arrest is then very differently described, and a totally separate cause is given for his daily retention in the court of the prison.

In fact, the conjunction opening chapter 38 refers back to verses 8, 9, and 10 of chapter 21. Jeremiah's final arrest is then described very differently. And a completely different reason is given for keeping him in the prison courtyard day after day.

We may thus clearly see that these portions of the book have been compiled from various sources, and are only from this point of view comprehensible. The prophecies contained in the remaining chapters, where Jeremiah speaks in the first person, seem to be taken from a book written by Baruch, at Jeremiah's dictation. These, however, only comprise (as appears from chap. xxxvi:2) the prophecies revealed to the prophet from the time of Josiah to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, at which period the book begins. The contents of chap. xlv:2, on to chap. li:59, seem taken from the same volume.

We can thus clearly see that these parts of the book were compiled from various sources. They can only be understood in that light. In the remaining chapters, Jeremiah speaks in the first person. These prophecies seem to come from a book that Baruch wrote at Jeremiah's dictation. However, they include only the prophecies revealed to Jeremiah from Josiah's time to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This limit is clear from chapter 36:2. The book begins in that fourth year. The contents from chapter 45:2 through chapter 51:59 seem to come from the same volume.

That the book of Ezekiel is only a fragment, is clearly indicated by the first verse. For anyone may see that the conjunction with which it begins, refers to something already said, and connects what follows therewith. However, not only this conjunction, but the whole text of the discourse implies other writings. The fact of the present work beginning the thirtieth year shows that the prophet is continuing, not commencing a discourse; and this is confirmed by the writer, who parenthetically states in verse 3, "The word of the Lord came often unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans," as if to say that the prophecies which he is about to relate are the sequel to revelations formerly received by Ezekiel from God. Furthermore, Josephus, 11 Antiq." x:9, says that Ezekiel prophesied that Zedekiah should not see Babylon, whereas the book we now have not only contains no such statement, but contrariwise asserts in chap. xvii. that he should be taken to Babylon as a captive,²⁰.

The first verse clearly shows that the book of Ezekiel is only a fragment. Anyone can see that its opening conjunction refers to something already said and connects what follows to it. But not only the conjunction suggests earlier writings. The whole passage does too. The book begins in the thirtieth year, showing that the prophet is continuing an account, not starting one. The writer confirms this in an aside in verse 3: "The word of the Lord came often unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans," as if to say that the prophecies he is about to recount follow earlier revelations Ezekiel received from God. Furthermore, Josephus, in Antiquities 10:9, says that Ezekiel prophesied that Zedekiah would not see Babylon. Yet the book we now have contains no such statement. On the contrary, chapter 17 states that Zedekiah would be taken captive to Babylon,²⁰.

Of Hosea I cannot positively state that he wrote more than is now extant in the book bearing his name, but I am astonished at the smallness of the quantity we possess, for the sacred writer asserts that the prophet prophesied for more than eighty years.

I cannot say for certain that Hosea wrote more than what survives in the book bearing his name. But I am astonished at how little we have, because the biblical writer says Hosea prophesied for over eighty years.

We may assert, speaking generally, that the compiler of the prophetic books neither collected all the prophets, nor all the writings of those we have; for of the prophets who are said to have prophesied in the reign of Manasseh and of whom general mention is made in 2 Chron. xxxiii:10, 18, we have, evidently, no prophecies extant; neither have we all the prophecies of the twelve who give their names to books. Of Jonah we have only the prophecy concerning the Ninevites, though he also prophesied to the children of Israel, as we learn in 2 Kings xiv:25.

In general, we may say that the compiler of the prophetic books did not include all the prophets. Nor did he include all the writings of the prophets whose works we have. For some prophets are said to have prophesied during the reign of Manasseh. They are mentioned in general terms in 2 Chronicles 33:10, 18, but evidently none of their prophecies survive. Nor do we have all the prophecies of the twelve prophets whose names the books bear. Of Jonah, we have only the prophecy concerning the Ninevites. Yet he also prophesied to the children of Israel, as we learn in 2 Kings 14:25.

The book and the personality of Job have caused much controversy. Some think that the book is the work of Moses, and the whole narrative merely allegorical. Such is the opinion of the Rabbins recorded in the Talmud, and they are supported by, Maimonides in his "More Nebuchim." Others believe it to be a true history, and some suppose that Job lived in the time of Jacob, and was married to his daughter Dinah. Aben Ezra, however, as I have already stated, affirms, in his commentaries, that the work is a translation into Hebrew from some other language: I could wish that he could advance more cogent arguments than he does, for we might then conclude that the Gentiles also had sacred books. I myself leave the matter undecided, but I conjecture Job to have been a Gentile, and a man of very stable character, who at first prospered, then was assailed with terrible calamities, and finally, was restored to great happiness. (He is thus named, among others, by Ezekiel, xiv:12.) I take it that the constancy of his mind amid the vicissitudes of his fortune occasioned many men to dispute about God's providence, or at least caused the writer of the book in question to compose his dialogues; for the contents, and also the style, seem to emanate far less from a man wretchedly ill and lying among ashes, than from one reflecting at ease in his study. I should also be inclined to agree with Aben Ezra that the book is a translation, for its poetry seems akin to that of the Gentiles; thus the Father of Gods summons a council, and Momus, here called Satan, criticizes the Divine decrees with the utmost freedom. But these are mere conjectures without any solid foundation.

The book of Job and Job himself have caused much controversy. Some think Moses wrote the book and that the whole story is merely an allegory. This is the opinion of the Rabbins recorded in the Talmud. Maimonides supports their view in his "More Nebuchim." Others believe the story is true. Some suppose Job lived in Jacob’s time and was married to Jacob’s daughter Dinah. Aben Ezra, however, states in his commentaries that the work was translated into Hebrew from another language, as I mentioned earlier. I wish he could offer stronger arguments than he does. We might then conclude that the Gentiles also had sacred books. I leave the matter undecided, but I suspect Job was a Gentile and a man of very steady character. He first prospered, then suffered terrible disasters, and finally returned to great happiness. (Ezekiel, xiv:12, names him among others.) I take it that Job’s steadfastness through these changes in fortune led many people to debate God’s providence. Or at least it prompted the book’s author to write his dialogues. Both the content and the style seem far less likely to come from someone desperately ill and lying among ashes. They seem more like the work of someone reflecting at ease in his study. I would also be inclined to agree with Aben Ezra that the book is a translation. Its poetry seems similar to that of the Gentiles. For example, the Father of Gods calls a council, and Momus, here called Satan, freely criticizes God’s decrees. But these are only guesses without any solid foundation.

I pass on to the book of Daniel, which, from chap. viii. onwards, undoubtedly contains the writing of Daniel himself. Whence the first seven chapters are derived I cannot say; we may, however, conjecture that, as they were first written in Chaldean, they are taken from Chaldean chronicles. If this could be proved, it would form a very striking proof of the fact that the sacredness of Scripture depends on our understanding of the doctrines therein signified, and not on the words, the language, and the phrases in which these doctrines are conveyed to us; and it would further show us that books which teach and speak of whatever is highest and best are equally sacred, whatever be the tongue in which they are written, or the nation to which they belong.

I turn now to the book of Daniel. From chapter 8 onward, the book undoubtedly contains Daniel’s own writing. I cannot say where the first seven chapters came from. We may, however, suppose that they came from Chaldean chronicles, since they were first written in Chaldean. If this origin could be proved, it would provide striking evidence for what makes Scripture sacred. Its sacredness depends on our understanding of the teachings it expresses, not on the words, language, or phrases used. Proving this origin would also show that books teaching and discussing what is highest and best are equally sacred. Their language and the nation they belong to would make no difference.

We can, however, in this case only remark that the chapters in question were written in Chaldee, and yet are as sacred as the rest of the Bible.

However, in this case, we can only note that the chapters in question were written in Chaldee. Yet those chapters are as sacred as the rest of the Bible.

The first book of Ezra is so intimately connected with the book of Daniel that both are plainly recognizable as the work of the same author, writing of Jewish history from the time of the first captivity onwards. I have no hesitation in joining to this the book of Esther, for the conjunction with which it begins can refer to nothing else. It cannot be the same work as that written by Mordecai, for, in chap. ix:20-22, another person relates that Mordecai wrote letters, and tells us their contents; further, that Queen Esther confirmed the days of Purim in their times appointed, and that the decree was written in the book that is (by a Hebraism), in a book known to all then living, which, as Aben Ezra and the rest confess, has now perished. Lastly, for the rest of the acts of Mordecai, the historian refers us to the chronicles of the kings of Persia. Thus there is no doubt that this book was written by the same person as he who recounted the history of Daniel and Ezra, and who wrote Nehemiah,²¹, sometimes called the second book of Ezra. We may, then, affirm that all these books are from one hand; but we have no clue whatever to the personality of the author. However, in order to determine whence he, whoever he was, had gained a knowledge of the histories which he had, perchance, in great measure himself written, we may remark that the governors or chiefs of the Jews, after the restoration of the Temple, kept scribes or historiographers, who wrote annals or chronicles of them. The chronicles of the kings are often quoted in the books of Kings, but the chronicles of the chiefs and priests are quoted for the first time in Nehemiah xii:23, and again in 1 Macc. xvi:24. This is undoubtedly the book referred to as containing the decree of Esther and the acts of Mordecai; and which, as we said with Aben Ezra, is now lost. From it were taken the whole contents of these four books, for no other authority is quoted by their writer, or is known to us.

The first book of Ezra is so closely connected with the book of Daniel that both clearly have the same author. This author traced Jewish history from the time of the first captivity onward. I have no hesitation in adding the book of Esther to these works. The conjunction at the beginning of Esther can refer to nothing else. Esther cannot be the same work as the one written by Mordecai. In chapter 9:20-22, another person reports that Mordecai wrote letters and describes their contents. The writer also reports that Queen Esther confirmed the appointed days of Purim, and that the decree was recorded in the book. By a Hebrew expression, “the book” means a book known to everyone living at the time. As Aben Ezra and the others acknowledge, that book is now lost. Finally, for the rest of Mordecai’s deeds, the historian refers us to the chronicles of the kings of Persia. Thus, there is no doubt that Esther was written by the author who recounted the history of Daniel and Ezra. This author also wrote Nehemiah,²¹, sometimes called the second book of Ezra. We may therefore affirm that all these books have one author. But we have no clue at all to the author’s identity. Still, we can consider where this author, whoever he was, learned the histories he perhaps largely wrote himself. After the restoration of the Temple, the governors or leaders of the Jews employed scribes or historians. These scribes kept annals or chronicles of those leaders. The books of Kings often cite the chronicles of the kings. But the chronicles of the leaders and priests are first cited in Nehemiah 12:23, and again in 1 Macc. 16:24. These chronicles are undoubtedly the book mentioned as containing Esther’s decree and Mordecai’s deeds. As we said, following Aben Ezra, that book is now lost. The entire contents of these four books were taken from that source. Their writer cites no other authority, and none is known to us.

That these books were not written by either Ezra or Nehemiah is plain from Nehemiah xii:9, where the descendants of the high priest, Joshua are traced down to Jaddua, the sixth high priest, who went to meet Alexander the Great, when the Persian empire was almost subdued (Josephus, "Ant." ii. 108), or who, according to Philo-Judaeus, was the sixth and last high priest under the Persians. In the same chapter of Nehemiah, verse 22, this point is clearly brought out: "The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian" - that is to say, in the chronicles; and, I suppose, no one thinks²² that the lives of Nehemiah and Ezra were so prolonged that they outlived fourteen kings of Persia. Cyrus was the first who granted the Jews permission to rebuild their Temple: the period between his time and Darius, fourteenth and last king of Persia, extends over 230 years. I have, therefore, no doubt that these books were written after Judas Maccabaeus had restored the worship in the Temple, for at that time false books of Daniel, Ezra, and Esther were published by evil-disposed persons, who were almost certainly Sadducees, for the writings were never recognized by the Pharisees, so far as I am aware; and, although certain myths in the fourth book of Ezra are repeated in the Talmud, they must not be set down to the Pharisees, for all but the most ignorant admit that they have been added by some trifler: in fact, I think, someone must have made such additions with a view to casting ridicule on all the traditions of the sect.

These books were clearly not written by either Ezra or Nehemiah, as Nehemiah xii:9 shows. That passage traces the descendants of the high priest Joshua down to Jaddua, the sixth high priest. Jaddua went to meet Alexander the Great when the Persian empire was almost conquered (Josephus, "Ant." ii. 108). Or, according to Philo-Judaeus, Jaddua was the sixth and last high priest under the Persians. Verse 22 of the same chapter of Nehemiah makes this point clear: "The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian". That is, they were recorded in the chronicles. And I suppose no one thinks²² that Nehemiah and Ezra lived long enough to outlive fourteen kings of Persia. Cyrus was the first to give the Jews permission to rebuild their Temple. From his time to Darius, the fourteenth and last king of Persia, 230 years passed. I therefore have no doubt that these books were written after Judas Maccabaeus restored worship in the Temple. For at that time, malicious people published false books of Daniel, Ezra, and Esther. These people were almost certainly Sadducees, since, as far as I know, the Pharisees never recognized those writings. Although certain myths in the fourth book of Ezra are repeated in the Talmud, those myths must not be attributed to the Pharisees. For all but the most ignorant admit that some trifler added them. In fact, I think someone must have added those myths to ridicule all the traditions of the sect.

Perhaps these four books were written out and published at the time I have mentioned with a view to showing the people that the prophecies of Daniel had been fulfilled, and thus kindling their piety, and awakening a hope of future deliverance in the midst of their misfortunes. In spite of their recent origin, the books before us contain many errors, due, I suppose, to the haste with which they were written. Marginal readings, such as I have mentioned in the last chapter, are found here as elsewhere, and in even greater abundance; there are, moreover, certain passages which can only be accounted for by supposing some such cause as hurry.

Perhaps these four books were written down and published at the time I mentioned to show the people that Daniel’s prophecies had been fulfilled. The aim would have been to stir their devotion and awaken hope of future deliverance amid their misfortunes. Despite their recent origin, these books contain many errors, caused, I suppose, by the haste with which they were written. Alternative readings in the margins, like those I mentioned in the last chapter, appear here as elsewhere, and even more often. There are also certain passages that can only be explained by assuming some cause such as haste.

However, before calling attention to the marginal readings, I will remark that, if the Pharisees are right in supposing them to have been ancient, and the work of the original scribes, we must perforce admit that these scribes (if there were more than one) set them down because they found that the text from which they were copying was inaccurate, and did yet not venture to alter what was written by their predecessors and superiors. I need not again go into the subject at length, and will, therefore, proceed to mention some discrepancies not noticed in the margin.

Before discussing the marginal readings, however, I will make one observation. Suppose the Pharisees are right that these readings are ancient and were written by the original scribes. Then we must accept that the scribes (if there was more than one) added them for the following reason. They found errors in the text they were copying, but did not dare change their predecessors’ and superiors’ words. I need not discuss this subject at length again. I will therefore turn to some discrepancies not noted in the margin.

I. Some error has crept into the text of the second chapter of Ezra, for in verse 64 we are told that the total of all those mentioned in the rest of the chapter amounts to 42,360; but, when we come to add up the several items we get as result only 29,818. There must, therefore, be an error, either in the total, or in the details. The total is probably correct, for it would most likely be well known to all as a noteworthy thing; but with the details, the case would be different. If, then, any error had crept into the total, it would at once have been remarked, and easily corrected. This view is confirmed by Nehemiah vii., where this chapter of Ezra is mentioned, and a total is given in plain correspondence thereto; but the details are altogether different - some are larger, and some less, than those in Ezra, and altogether they amount to 31,089. We may, therefore, conclude that both in Ezra and in Nehemiah the details are erroneously given. The commentators who attempt to harmonize these evident contradictions draw on their imagination, each to the best of his ability; and while professing adoration for each letter and word of Scripture, only succeed in holding up the sacred writers to ridicule, as though they knew not how to write or relate a plain narrative. Such persons effect nothing but to render the clearness of Scripture obscure. If the Bible could everywhere be interpreted after their fashion, there would be no such thing as a rational statement of which the meaning could be relied on. However, there is no need to dwell on the subject; only I am convinced that if any historian were to attempt to imitate the proceedings freely attributed to the writers of the Bible, the commentators would cover him with contempt. If it be blasphemy to assert that there are any errors in Scripture, what name shall we apply to those who foist into it their own fancies, who degrade the sacred writers till they seem to write confused nonsense, and who deny the plainest and most evident meanings? What in the whole Bible can be plainer than the fact that Ezra and his companions, in the second chapter of the book attributed to him, have given in detail the reckoning of all the Hebrews who set out with them for Jerusalem? This is proved by the reckoning being given, not only of those who told their lineage, but also of those who were unable to do so. Is it not equally clear from Nehemiah vii:5, that the writer merely there copies the list given in Ezra? Those, therefore, who explain these passages otherwise, deny the plain meaning of Scripture - nay, they deny Scripture itself. They think it pious to reconcile one passage of Scripture with another - a pretty piety, forsooth, which accommodates the clear passages to the obscure, the correct to the faulty, the sound to the corrupt.

I. An error has crept into the text of the second chapter of Ezra. Verse 64 gives 42,360 as the total number of people listed in the rest of the chapter. But when we add up the individual figures, we get only 29,818. There must therefore be an error either in the total or in the individual figures. The total is probably correct, since such a noteworthy number would most likely have been widely known. But the individual figures would be a different matter. So if an error had crept into the total, someone would immediately have noticed and easily corrected the error. Nehemiah 7 supports this view. That chapter refers to this chapter of Ezra and gives a total that clearly matches Ezra's. But the individual figures are entirely different. Some are higher than Ezra's, and some are lower, and together they add up to 31,089. We may therefore conclude that the individual figures in both Ezra and Nehemiah are wrong. Commentators who try to reconcile these obvious contradictions rely on their imagination, each as best he can. They profess reverence for every letter and word of Scripture. Yet they only expose the sacred writers to ridicule, as though those writers could not write or tell a straightforward story. Such commentators achieve nothing except to obscure Scripture's clarity. If the Bible could everywhere be interpreted in their way, no rational statement would have a meaning anyone could trust. But there is no need to dwell on this subject. I am convinced of one thing. Suppose a historian tried to imitate the practices these commentators freely attribute to the biblical writers. The commentators would heap contempt on that historian. If asserting that Scripture contains errors is blasphemy, what should we call these commentators' actions? They force their own fantasies into Scripture. They degrade the sacred writers until those writers seem to produce confused nonsense. And they deny the clearest and most obvious meanings. What could be clearer anywhere in the Bible than the account in Ezra's second chapter? In that chapter of the book attributed to Ezra, Ezra and his companions give a detailed count. The count includes all the Hebrews who set out with them for Jerusalem. As proof, the count includes not only those who could state their ancestry, but also those who could not. Is Nehemiah 7:5 not equally clear that the writer is simply copying the list given in Ezra? Those who explain these passages otherwise therefore deny Scripture's plain meaning. Indeed, they deny Scripture itself. They think reconciling one passage of Scripture with another is pious. What fine piety, making clear passages conform to obscure ones, correct passages to faulty ones, and sound passages to corrupted ones!

Far be it from me to call such commentators blasphemers, if their motives be pure: for to err is human. But I return to my subject.

I would never call such commentators blasphemers if their motives are pure, because making mistakes is human. But I return to my subject.

Besides these errors in numerical details, there are others in the genealogies, in the history, and, I fear also in the prophecies. The prophecy of Jeremiah (chap. xxii.), concerning Jechoniah, evidently does not agree with his history, as given in I Chronicles iii:17-19, and especially with the last words of the chapter, nor do I see how the prophecy, "thou shalt die in peace," can be applied to Zedekiah, whose eyes were dug out after his sons had been slain before him. If prophecies are to be interpreted by their issue, we must make a change of name, and read Jechoniah for Zedekiah, and vice versa This, however, would be too paradoxical a proceeding; so I prefer to leave the matter unexplained, especially as the error, if error there be, must be set down to the historian, and not to any fault in the authorities.

Besides these errors in numerical details, there are others in the genealogies, the history, and, I fear, the prophecies too. Jeremiah’s prophecy (chapter 22) concerning Jechoniah clearly does not agree with Jechoniah’s history in I Chronicles 3:17-19. The disagreement is especially clear in the chapter’s final words. Nor do I see how the prophecy, "you shall die in peace," can apply to Zedekiah. His eyes were gouged out after his sons had been killed before him. If prophecies are to be interpreted by their outcomes, we must change the names. We must read Jechoniah for Zedekiah, and Zedekiah for Jechoniah. Such a change, however, would be too paradoxical, so I prefer to leave the matter unexplained. This is especially because the error, if there is one, must be attributed to the historian, not to faulty sources.

Other difficulties I will not touch upon, as I should only weary the reader, and, moreover, be repeating the remarks of other writers. For R. Selomo, in face of the manifest contradiction in the above-mentioned genealogies, is compelled to break forth into these words (see his commentary on 1 Chron. viii.): "Ezra (whom he supposes to be the author of the book of Chronicles) gives different names and a different genealogy to the sons of Benjamin from those which we find in Genesis, and describes most of the Levites differently from Joshua, because he found original discrepancies." And, again, a little later: "The genealogy of Gibeon and others is described twice in different ways, from different tables of each genealogy, and in writing them down Ezra adopted the version given in the majority of the texts, and when the authority was equal he gave both." Thus granting that these books were compiled from sources originally incorrect and uncertain.

I will not discuss other difficulties, since I would only tire the reader and repeat other writers’ remarks. Faced with the obvious contradiction in the genealogies mentioned above, R. Selomo is forced to make the following statement. It appears in his commentary on 1 Chron. viii.: "Ezra gives the sons of Benjamin different names and a different genealogy from those found in Genesis. He also describes most of the Levites differently from Joshua, because he found discrepancies in the original sources." R. Selomo assumes that Ezra wrote the book of Chronicles. A little later, he adds: "The genealogy of Gibeon and others is given twice in different forms, drawn from different tables of each genealogy. When recording these, Ezra chose the version found in most of the texts. When the sources had equal authority, he included both." He thus admits that these books were compiled from sources that were incorrect and uncertain from the start.

In fact the commentators, in seeking to harmonize difficulties, generally do no more than indicate their causes: for I suppose no sane person supposes that the sacred historians deliberately wrote with the object of appearing to contradict themselves freely. Perhaps I shall be told that I am overthrowing the authority of Scripture, for that, according to me, anyone may suspect it of error in any passage; but, on the contrary, I have shown that my object has been to prevent the clear and uncorrupted passages being accommodated to and corrupted by the faulty ones; neither does the fact that some passages are corrupt warrant us in suspecting all. No book ever was completely free from faults, yet I would ask, who suspects all books to be everywhere faulty? Surely no one, especially when the phraseology is clear and the intention of the author plain.

In fact, commentators who try to reconcile difficulties generally do no more than explain what causes them. For I assume no sane person believes the sacred historians deliberately wrote to make themselves appear to contradict themselves freely. Perhaps I will be told that I am undermining the authority of Scripture. According to my critics, my argument allows anyone to suspect any passage of error. But on the contrary, I have shown that my aim is to protect the clear, uncorrupted passages. I want to prevent them from being distorted to fit the faulty ones. Nor does the fact that some passages are corrupt justify suspecting all passages. No book has ever been completely free of faults. Yet I ask, who suspects every book of being faulty everywhere? Surely no one, especially when the wording is clear and the author's intention is plain.

I have now finished the task I set myself with respect to the books of the Old Testament. We may easily conclude from what has been said, that before the time of the Maccabees there was no canon of sacred books,²³, but that those which we now possess were selected from a multitude of others at the period of the restoration of the Temple by the Pharisees (who also instituted the set form of prayers), who are alone responsible for their acceptance. Those, therefore, who would demonstrate the authority of Holy Scripture, are bound to show the authority of each separate book; it is not enough to prove the Divine origin of a single book in order to infer the Divine origin of the rest. In that case we should have to assume that the council of Pharisees was, in its choice of books, infallible, and this could never be proved. I am led to assert that the Pharisees alone selected the books of the Old Testament, and inserted them in the canon, from the fact that in Daniel xii. is proclaimed the doctrine of the Resurrection, which the Sadducees denied; and, furthermore, the Pharisees plainly assert in the Talmud that they so selected them. For in the treatise of Sabbathus, chapter ii., folio 30, page 2, it is written: R. Jehuda, surnamed Rabbi, reports that the experts wished to conceal the book of Ecclesiastes because they found therein words opposed to the law (that is, to the book of the law of Moses). Why did they not hide it? "Because it begins in accordance with the law, and ends according to the law;" and a little further on we read: "They sought also to conceal the book of Proverbs." And in the first chapter of the same treatise, fol. 13, page 2: "Verily, name one man for good, even he who was called Neghunja, the son of Hezekiah: for, save for him, the book of Ezekiel would been concealed, because it agreed not with the words of the law."

I have now finished the task I set myself concerning the books of the Old Testament. From what has been said, we can easily conclude that before the Maccabees there was no canon of sacred books,²³. Instead, the books we now have were selected from many others when the Temple was restored. The Pharisees selected these books and were solely responsible for their acceptance. The Pharisees also established the set form of prayers. Therefore, anyone seeking to establish the authority of Holy Scripture must establish the authority of each book separately. Proving that one book has a divine origin is not enough to conclude that the others do too. Such a conclusion would require assuming that the council of Pharisees was infallible in its choice of books. But that infallibility could never be proved. I maintain that the Pharisees alone selected the books of the Old Testament and included them in the canon. My reason is that Daniel xii. proclaims the doctrine of the Resurrection, which the Sadducees denied. Furthermore, the Pharisees plainly state in the Talmud that they selected these books. The treatise of Sabbathus, chapter ii., folio 30, page 2, contains the following account. R. Jehuda, surnamed Rabbi, reports that the experts wanted to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes. They found words in Ecclesiastes that contradicted the law (that is, the book of the law of Moses). Why did they not suppress Ecclesiastes? "Because it begins in agreement with the law, and ends in agreement with the law." A little further on we read: "They also sought to suppress the book of Proverbs." And in the first chapter of the same treatise, fol. 13, page 2, we read: "Truly, name one man worthy of praise, the man called Neghunja, the son of Hezekiah. For without him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, because it contradicted the words of the law."

It is thus abundantly clear that men expert in the law summoned a council to decide which books should be received into the canon, and which excluded. If any man, therefore, wishes to be certified as to the authority of all the books, let him call a fresh council, and ask every member his reasons.

It is therefore abundantly clear that experts in the law called a council to decide which books belonged in the canon. The council also decided which books to exclude. So if anyone wants certainty about the authority of all the books, let him call a new council. Let him ask each member for his reasons.

The time has now come for examining in the same manner the books in the New Testament; but as I learn that the task has been already performed by men highly skilled in science and languages, and as I do not myself possess a knowledge of Greek sufficiently exact for the task; lastly, as we have lost the originals of those books which were written in Hebrew, I prefer to decline the undertaking. However, I will touch on those points which have most bearing on my subject in the following chapter.

The time has now come to examine the books of the New Testament in the same way. But I understand that men highly skilled in scholarship and languages have already done this work. Also, my knowledge of Greek is not precise enough for the task. Finally, we have lost the originals of the books written in Hebrew. For these reasons, I prefer not to undertake this work. However, in the next chapter, I will briefly discuss the points most relevant to my subject.