Regarding the first of these divisions, it may be pointed out that the Jews regard the Law, or Torah, as by far the most important part of their Scriptures, in comparison with which the other two divisions occupy quite a subordinate position; indeed, the “Prophets” and the “Writings” are sometimes spoken of as mere “Tradition” (_Kabbalah_), in contrast with the Law. As to the second division, it should be noted that the Jews in early days regarded the two books of Samuel[202] as one book, and the same applies to the two books of Kings. The terms “Former” and “Latter” Prophets do not refer to their respective dates of composition, but must be taken to indicate the order of the books in the canonical collection.[203] In the third division we see, in the first place, that the order of the books in each of the sub-divisions differs from that of the English Bible; secondly, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as one book, and this is also the case with 1, 2 Chronicles. The five “Scrolls” occupy an important and somewhat special position among the Jews, for they are assigned, for reading, to particular feast-days and one fast-day, viz. Passover (_Pesach_), Weeks (_Shebuôth_), the fast of the “ninth of Ab,”[204] Tabernacles (_Succôth_), and Lots (_Purim_), respectively. Thus, the first division has five books, the second has eight, and the third has eleven, making twenty-four in all. These books, then, constitute the Hebrew Canon in its final form, the authoritative Scriptures to which no book may be added, and from which no book may be taken away. We have now to inquire as to when, by whom, and why these books were singled out from among the mass of Jewish literature to occupy this honoured position. II. THE IDEA OF A CANON In seeking to answer the question as to when the Hebrew Canon assumed its present, final, form, it is well to begin by emphasizing the need of distinguishing between a _collection of books_, all valued more or less, and the _formation of a Canon_. It is not only comprehensible, but altogether natural to find that, given the existence of a large literature, a certain number of books belonging to it should be more highly valued and honoured than others contained in that literature; it does not, however, therefore necessarily follow that such more highly honoured books alone are acceptable and widely used, or that they are regarded as so holy that not a letter of them may be altered, while all other books belonging to that literature are regarded as of inferior value and of no authority.