From the evidence of the Mishna we turn to an important passage in Josephus. Writing at about the end of the first century A.D., Josephus, in his treatise against Apion (i. 8), after saying that the prophets alone were inspired by God to write down the earliest events as well as those of their own times, continues: “We have not myriads of books disagreeing with, and antagonistic to, one another, but two and twenty only,[212] which contain the record of all time (past), and are rightly believed in.[213] And of these, five belong to Moses; they contain the laws and the tradition from man’s origin to his death for a period of nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote down the things that were done during their time in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and precepts for men’s conduct of life. But from Artaxerxes to our times all events have, it is true, been written down; but these later books are not thought to be worthy of the same credit, because the exact succession of prophets was wanting.” According to Josephus, therefore, the canonicity of a book depended upon whether it had been written within a clearly defined period, and that period was from Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, i.e., the prophetical period. The artificiality of this test is shown by the fact that, in the words of Ryle, “the mention of this particular limit seems to be made expressly with reference to the Book of Esther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew book of Esther) figures.”[214] But in pointing to this test of canonicity, Josephus is not expressing a theory of his own, for a similar view was held by the Rabbis. They, too, maintained that no book was canonical unless it had been written within a fixed period, the prophetical period; for them this period was from Moses to Ezra.[215] Josephus thus witnesses to the principle, authoritative and fully accepted by the end of the first century A.D., on the basis of which the Hebrew Canon was formed. But the theory on which this principle was based was contrary to fact, for on this view “there never was or could be any discussion as to the number and limits of the canonical collection, which had from first to last an official character. Each new book was written by a man of acknowledged authority, and was added to the collection precisely as a new page would be added to the royal annals of an eastern kingdom. It is plain that this view is not in accordance with facts.... Josephus’ account of the Canon is a theory, and a theory inconsistent with the fact that we find no complete formal catalogue of Scriptures in earlier writers like the son of Sirach, who, in enumerating the literary worthies of his nation, had every motive to give a complete list, if he had been in a position to do so; inconsistent also with