nor would he have taken upon himself, as Hölscher has pointedly remarked, to assume the tone and style of the ancient prophets, as he often does (see, e.g., xlvii. 20, l. 29), if the “unbridgable cleft of canonicity” had stood between him and the prophets.[207] The list, therefore, such as it is, does not imply the existence of a Canon. The same must be said of the evidence of Ben-Sira’s grandson, who translated his grandfather’s work into Greek (about B.C. 132). He says in his Prologue: “Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have followed in their steps ...”; and later on, he again speaks of “the Law, and the Prophets, and the books of our fathers”; and “the Law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books.” The loose way in which the writer speaks of the third category of books, and the fact that he does not apply to them the technical name of _Kethubim_ (“Writings” = _Hagiographa_) is clear evidence that what we now understand by the “Hebrew Canon” was not yet in existence. We may go even further and say that the Pentateuch, the prophetical books and some others occupied a position of special honour among many other books belonging to Hebrew literature,[208] but that not even the Law and the Prophets can have been regarded as “canonical” in the later sense of the word, otherwise they would not have been mentioned along with books which admittedly were not “canonical.”[209] This is further borne out by the following words, which occur in the Prologue: “My grandfather Jesus, having given himself much to the reading of the Law, and the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers, and having gained familiarity therein, _was drawn on also himself to write somewhat pertaining to instruction and wisdom_, in order that those who love learning, and are addicted to these things, might make progress much more by living according to the Law.” It is obvious from these words that Ben-Sira’s grandson looked upon his grandfather as one of those who had “followed after” the writers of the Law and the Prophets, and that he regarded his grandfather’s book as having a legitimate place among the “books of the fathers.” But, this being so, it cannot be said that the Hebrew Scriptures, or any part of them, were regarded as canonical in the ordinary sense of the word. If the Law, the Prophets and other books are treated as a special body of literature to which a new book can be said to belong, in the natural and matter of course way in which Ben-Sira’s grandson does that, it is clear that he, at all events, did not regard this special body of literature as so sacrosanct that nothing could be added to it. Therefore, according to this evidence, there was no “Canon of Scripture,” as we understand it, as late as about B.C. 132. It follows, then, further that such books as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, and others, were not regarded as “apocryphal,”