Footnotes
[1.]κανών.[2.]Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp 3-68.[3.]Clement. Hom. ap. Coteler, vol. i. p. 608.[4.]Stromata, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.[5.]Adv. Hæres., i. 95.[6.]Ap. Euseb. H. E., v. 24.[7.]De præscript. Hæreticorum, chs. 12, 13.[8.]Comment. in Mat. iii. p. 916; ed. Delarue.[9.]γραφαὶ κανόνος.[10.]Monumenta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam petinentia, ed. Dupin, p. 168.[11.]κανών.[12.]At the end of the Iambi ad Seleucum, on the books of the New Testament, he adds, οὐτος ἀψευδέστατος κανὼν ἄν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν.[13.]Prologus galeatus in ii. Reg.[14.]Expos. in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.[15.]κανονικός.[16.]ἰδιωτικός and ἀκανόνιστος.[17.]Κανονιζόμενα.[18.]Such as ἐνδιάθηκα, ὡρισμένα.[19.]κανονιζόμενα or κεκανονισμένα.[20.]ἀπόκρυφος.[21.]Orat. de Ordin., vol. ii. p. 44.[22.]גנז. The Jews applied the word genuzim to books withdrawn from public use, whose contents were thought to be out of harmony with the doctrinal or moral views of Judaism when the canon was closed. See Fürst's Der Kanon des alten Testaments, p. 127, note; and Geiger's Urschrift, p. 201.[23.]δεδημοσιευμένα.[24.]H. E. Il. 23, III. 3-16.[25.]Stromata, lib. iii. p. 1134, ed. Migne.[26.]Prolog. ad Cant., opp., vol. iii. p. 36.[27.]νόθος, ψευδεπίγραφος.[28.]See Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v.[29.]Βιβλία ἀναγινωσκόμενα, libri ecclesiastici.[30.]In his epistle to Laeta he uses the epithet in its customary sense, of books unauthentic, not proceeding from the authors whose names they bear. Opp. vol. i. p. 877, ed. Migne.[31.]Num. xxi. 14.[32.]Joshua x. 12, 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.[33.]2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3.[34.]Isaiah, xl.-lxvi.[35.]Chap. xiv. 23-50, &c. See Hilgenfeld's Messias Judærorum, p. 107.[36.]See Buxtorf's Tiberias, chap. x., p. 88, &c.; and Herzfeld's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 380, &c. Zwölfter Excursus.[37.]Chapter i.[38.]על ידי. Does this mean for, instead of, as Bloch understands it? Waehner inserts, to fill up the sense, “some of which, however, were composed by;” but this is far-fetched. See Antiquitates Ebræorum, p. 13.[39.]Fol. 15, 1.[40.]פחכ.[41.]Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur, p. 127, &c.[42.]vii. 12, συναγωγὴ γραμματέων, not ἡ συναγωγή.[43.]That the Scribes always adhered to the prohibition to write no religious laws and ordinances cannot be held, even in the face of the Talmudic saying, כוחכ הילכוה כשורף חורה (writers of Halacoth are like a burner of the law). This may apply to the late scribes or bookmen, not to the earlier. The greater part of Geiger's Urschrift is based on the opposite idea. As the reverence for former scholars increased, the Talmudic saying might be accepted. See Temura, 14 b.[44.]Chapter ix. 2.[45.]Chapter ii. 13.[46.]Antiq. xii. 10, 1.[47.]Josephus's Antiq., xiii. 5, 8; 1 Maccab., xii. 35.[48.]1 Maccab., xiii. 36.[49.]Sota, 24 a.[50.]מבינים, Nehemiah viii. 3.[51.]Talmudic tradition, which attributes the redaction of the book to the men of the great synagogue who are said to have acted under the influence of the divine spirit, separates the three apocryphal pieces from the rest; but this arose from the desire of discountenancing the idea that the work consists of romance and legend. Such later tradition took curious ways of justifying the canonicity of Daniel and the redaction of it by the great synagogue, ex gr., the assumption that the second part arose out of a series of unconnected Megiloth which were not reduced to chronological order. Still the Midrash maintains that Daniel, or the person writing in his name, was no prophet, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but a man of visions, an apocalyptist. It was a general belief, that visions had come into the place of prophecy when the book appeared. The Greek translation could not have been long after the original, because it is used in the First Book of Maccabees. The interval between the Hebrew and the Greek was inconsiderable. The translator not only departed from, but added to, the original, inserting such important pieces as the Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, the history of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon. Whether any of these had been written before is uncertain. Most of the traditions they embody were probably reduced to writing by the translator, and presented in his peculiar style. The assertion, that Josephus was unacquainted with these additions is hazardous, since the way in which he speaks of Daniel's fame (Antiq. x. 11, 7), and especially of the books he wrote (τὰ βιβλία), supposes some relation to them. Elsewhere he speaks of one book (x. 10, 4; xi. 8, 5), where he may have thought of the canonical part.[52.]פתוביס, translated by the Greek ἁγιόγραφα, hagiographa.[53.]It has been thought that the phrase פעלי אמפות in the ninth verse alludes to the great council or synagogue. This conjecture is plausible on various grounds. The reasons for attributing the epilogue to a later time than the writer of the book appear to be stronger than those assigning it to the original author. The 13th and 14th verses in particular, are unlike Coheleth.[54.]τὰ ἀλλα πάτρια βιβλία; τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων. The younger Sirach does not use γραφαὶ, which would have been a proper translation of c'tubim. Does not this ἀλλα imply the non-application of the specific title c'tubim to the hagiographa at that time, and therefore the idea that the third canon was still open?[55.]Contra Apion, i. 8.[56.]In Maaser Sheni, Sota 24. 1, the duumvirate or suggoth, consisting of the president, Nasi, and vice-president, Ab-beth-din, are referred to Hyrcanus's creation. Zunz affirms that it originated in the time of Simon, son of Mattathias, 142 b.c.[57.]Antiq., xiv., 9.[58.]Der gerichtliche Beweis, p. 68.[59.]The Sanhedrim properly so called ceased under R. Judah I., Ha-Nasi, when the council of seventy members which sat at Sepphoris before his patriarchate, transferred its privileges to him, on his removal to that place. The court was then merged in the patriarch.[60.]ננוזים literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.[61.]See Fürst's Der Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w. pp. 147, 148.[62.]Tract. Sabbat. ch. i.[63.]Because of its profane spirit and Epicurean ideas; see Adoyot v. 3.[64.]Yadayim v. 3.[65.]See Graetz's Kohelet, pp. 162, 163.[66.]
The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements are contradictory. And why have they not declared it apocryphal? Because it begins with words of the law, and ends with words of the law, for it opens with the words “What advantage has man in all his labor wherewith he labors under the sun?” &c., &c.—Sabbat. 30 b.
So also in the Midrash: “The sages wished to pronounce Coheleth apocryphal,” &c., &c.—Vayyikra rabba 161 b.